(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against concurrent findings recorded by the courts whereby suit filed by Ram Kishan and others seeking declaration with regard to shares of the plaintiffs in land measuring 76 kanal 16 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03, situated in village Dhabi Khurd, Tehsil and District Fatehabad and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 (since deceased) now represented by LRs respondents No. 1 to 3 was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dtd. 28/7/2009 and appeal preferred by one of the plaintiffs namely Ramesh Kumar was dismissed by the District Judge, Fatehabad on 13/8/2012.
(2.) The plaintiffs have claimed that they being legal heirs of deceased Tulsi are entitle to ownership of suit land to the extent of 1/3rd 1 of 7 share by Ram Kishan and 1/3rd share in equal ratio by plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 and performa defendant Pawan Kumar, thus, entitle to get their names incorporated as such in the revenue records. They have challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 2/5/1977 passed in case No. 109 of 1977 titled "Om Parkash vs. Bansi" decided by Sub Judge Ist Class, Fatehabad and mutation No. 1155 sanctioned on the basis thereof on 11/6/1978.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants would argue that judgment and decree dtd. 2/5/1977 cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny as Om Parkash defendant No. 1 was never adopted by Bansi, therefore, the allegations in the plaint of civil suit filed by Om Parkash against Bansi on the basis whereof Om Parkash claimed family settlement to assert his right of ownership of half share in 76 kanal 16 marlas cannot be allowed to 2 of 7 sustain and liable to be set aside. Another submission made by counsel is that Om Parkash had no pre-existing right in the land owned by Bansi, therefore, judgment and decree dtd. 2/5/1977 cannot be taken into consideration for want of registration. It is further submitted that as in the previous litigation initiated by Om Parkash, he had raised a specific plea that he is the adopted son of Bansi and was adopted by Bansi about 25 years ago prior to 1977 and the said fact was admitted by Bansi in those proceedings, Om Parkash defendant No. 1 cannot claim any right of inheritance to his natural father Tulsi and accordingly, land measuring 38 kanal 8 marlas of the share of Tulsi shall be inherited by his other heirs in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is further argued that the courts below have committed a serious error rather illegality by holding that question with regard to inheritance to estate of Tulsi cannot be decided in the present litigation or the same can be adjudicated in an independent suit to be filed by the plaintiffs-appellants.