RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against judgment and decree dtd. 22/2/2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby appeal preferred by the State of Haryana through Collector, Kurukshetra against judgment and decree dtd. 29/8/2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") was accepted, judgment and decree dtd. 29/8/2014 were set aside and suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction as consequential relief, was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that the appellant has staked claim to suit land being successor in interest along with defendants No. 2 to 17 of Smt. Gomi. The case set up by the appellant is that Tula son of Nanak was owner in possession of land measuring 37 kanal 7 marlas inherited by him, vide mutation No. 64 dtd. 19/2/1963 from his father as well as Laxman son of Mokh Ram who was unmarried and died issueless in the year 1961. Tula died on 11/3/1975 and suit land was inherited by Smt. Gomi, daughter of said Tula. Smt. Gomi was earlier married with Datu Ram and after death of Datu Ram, she performed kareva marriage with Parhlada son of Chhotu, who was younger brother of Datu Ram. From wedlock of Datu Ram and Smt. Gomi, Chatar Singh and Mohan Lal were born. From wedlock of Parhlada and Smt. Gomi, plaintiff, defendants No. 12, 14 to 17 and Sunehari were born. Smt. Gomi died on 2/2/1978 leaving behind plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 17 and all the legal heirs inherited the suit land and other estate left behind by Smt. Gomi. The mutation of suit land could not be entered in favour of Smt. Gomi or her successors in interest due to the reason that Smt. Gomi was illiterate and simpleton lady. It is further averred that the appellant and defendants No. 2 to 17 are in constructive possession of suit land through Jai Singh son of Churia as a tenant. The appellant enquired from halqa partari about the suit land and came to know that mutation No. 237 was entered in favour of respondent No. 1 on 10/11/1999 by way of escheat. The said mutation was entered without adopting due procedure as no enquiry was done from legal heirs of Tula nor any publication was effected. On further enquiry, appellant came to know that a forged decree dtd. 10/10/1986 was procured by Multan Singh who got mutation No. 103 and 124 in his favour but later the said decree and mutations were set aside in the litigation.

(3.) Ram Chander-defendant No. 12 filed objections in execution petition No. 163 of 1998, decided vide order dtd. 18/7/2007. He also filed civil suit No. 255/05 of 2000 decided on 9/8/2007 in which further appeals were filed by Ram Chander. Ram Chander did not implead the plaintiff and other legal heirs of Smt. Gomi in the earlier litigation. The appellant prayed that plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 17 be declared owners in possession of suit land by setting aside mutation No. 237 sanctioned on the basis of decree dtd. 1/3/1996.