CHAND KAUR Vs. MANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Smt.Chand Kaur and Smt.Nand Kaur daughters of Sh.Mohar Singh son of Sh.Natha, resident of village Thana, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh had brought a suit against defendants i.e. Mani Ram etc. seeking a declaration that they along with proforma defendants Smt.Choti and Smt.Chand Kaur are owners in possession of 4/6 share equally in the suit land and the contesting defendants had no concern or connection therewith and that decree and judgment dtd. 3/6/1996 passed in Civil Suit No.56 dtd. 22/5/1996 titled 'Mani Ram etc. Versus Smt.Chand Kaur etc' are wrong against law and facts, based on fraud and misrepresentation and not binding upon rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants and as such liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs had also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession and cultivation of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants.

(2.) As per the version of the plaintiffs, the suit land happened to be joint Hindu family coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants; that the contesting defendants got 4/6 share of plaintiffs and proforma defendants vide a decree dtd. 3/6/1996, which according to the plaintiffs is wrong against facts, null and void, based upon fraud and misrepresentation; that as a matter of fact the plaintiffs and proforma defendants had not suffered the decree in question dtd. 3/6/1996; they had not appeared in the Court and had not made any statement there; they had not engaged any counsel, as such, the consent decree is liable to be set aside; that in terms of the said decree, the plaintiffs and proforma defendants had not received anything; that on strength of the impugned decree, the contesting defendants wanted to interfere in cultivating possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants over the suit land, to which they had no right not listening the requests of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants to desist from doing so. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs had brought the suit in question.

(3.) On notice, defendants No.l to 5 appeared and filed a joint written statement contesting the suit in question raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiffs to file it, further stating that the suit had been filed for harassing the answering defendants, therefore the same was liable to be dismissed with special cost under Sec. 35-A CPC. On merits, such defendants denied the material assertions in the plaint refuting that plaintiffs and proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land rather contending that the plaintiffs and proforma deendants had got recorded their statement in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Narnaul and suffered a decree dtd. 3/6/1996 in favour of the contesting defendants, resultantly the contesting defendants had been in possession of the suit land prior to passing decree in question in their favour. According to the answering defendants, the suit land is ancestral and joint Hindu family property of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. These defendants claimed themselves to be owner of the suit land on the basis of the impugned decree, which according to them is legal and valid with no reason being there to set it aside. They craved for dismissal of the suit.