KRISHNA DEVI Vs. YASHPAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Smt. Krishana Devi-widow, Sh. Subhash Chander and Sh. Hans Raj-sons of Sh. Leela Krishan had brought a suit for declaration against defendants Sh. Yashpaul and Sh. Naresh Kumar, both sons of Sh. Leela Krishan impleading Sh. Bharat Sen, another son of Sh. Leela Krishan and Ms. Poonam, Ms. Rashmi, Ms. Kavita, Ms. Sushma-daughters of Sh. Leela Krishan as proforma defendants.

(2.) As per the case of the plaintiffs, their predecessor-in-interest Sh. Leela Krishan had died on 16/8/1998 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as his legal representatives; that Sh. Leela Krishan was absolute owner in possession of the suit land; that he was residing at New Delhi permanently and he used to visit village Dhudhiawali, Tehsil and District Sirsa quite often; that his sons Yashpaul and Naresh Kumar had procured the impugned judgment dtd. 27/9/1991 passed in Civil Suit No. 722 of 1991 titled as "Yashpal and another v. Leela Krishan" passed by the then Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sirsa regarding 1/2 share of the suit land in their favour. According to the plaintiffs, the said judgment and decree are null and void being result of fraud, as such not binding upon their rights and are liable to be set aside; that the defendants had admitted in civil suit No. 722 of 1991 that they constitute a joint Hindu family, thus the plaintiffs and proforma defendants were necessary parties in the said suit but they were not impleaded; that as a matter of fact no such family settlement had ever taken place between Sh. Leela Krishan and defendants No. 1 and 2 and possession of land was also not delivered to them by Sh. Leela Krishan; that after death of Sh. Leela Krishan on 16/8/1998, the plaintiffs along with all the defendants have become joint owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/10 share each and defendants No. 1 and 2 are not in possession of 1/2 share in the suit land; that the defendants had not disclosed about the impugned judgment and decree during life time of Sh. Leela Krishan; the plaintiffs came to know about the impugned judgment and decree when they visited the Halqa Patwari for the purpose of getting mutation sanctioned with regard to inheritance of properties of Sh. Leela Krishan on the basis of natural succession; that the plaintiffs requested the defendants No. 1 and 2 to admit their claim but in vain, as such they filed the civil suit in question.

(3.) On notice, defendants No. 1 and 2 had appeared through counsel and filed a joint written statement contesting the suit, however relationship between the parties inter se and with Sh. Leela Krishan was admitted and so was death of Sh. Leela Krishan on 16/8/1998 also admitted. According to these defendants, no joint Hindu family was ever constituted by the parties to the suit and no jointness was there with regard to the suit land; that as a matter of fact all the sons, daughters and wife of Sh. Leela Krishan had been watching and looking after their individual/personal interests; that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No. 3 were notorious, nefarious, head strong and forcible persons and were disobedient sons of Sh. Leela Krishan; that they used to maltreat, humiliate and beat up their father Sh. Leela Krishan causing a great loss and harm to reputation and properties of the family; that plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Krishana Devi, who happened to be wife of Sh. Leela Krishan would refuse to prepare food and tea etc. for Sh. Leela Krishan; that under the circumstances Sh. Leela Krishan during his life time had ousted his sons Subhash Chander and Hans Raj, plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, respectively, as well as Bharat Sen-proforma defendant No. 3 from having any share in his properties; that a public notice in that regard was got published by Sh. Leela Krishan in the newspapers stating that he would not be responsible for any act, deed or liability of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and proforma defendant No. 3; that the answering defendants used to serve Sh. Leela Krishan in all respects, who pleased with their services and suffered a Court decree dtd. 27/9/1991 in their favour; resultantly the answering defendants became owners in possession of 1/2 share in the suit land equally; that the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 27/9/1991 were passed on the basis of family settlement and the same are legal and valid; that Sh. Leela Krishan had gone to the Court and engaged Sh. Goverdhan Dass Goyal, Advocate, who drafted the written statement of admission under instructions of Sh. Leela Krishan, who had signed and verified the same; that statement of Sh. Leela Krishan was also recorded in the Court on 27/9/1991, in which he admitted the factum of family settlement; that the suit property was self-acquired property of Sh. Leela Krishan, as such he was very much competent to suffer a decree; that prior to the family settlement, the answering defendants were in possession of the suit land since they used to manage the affairs of such suit land under the supervision of their father; that the answering defendants are in actual and physical possession of the entire land measuring 233 kanals 9 marlas as its absolute owners; further Sh. Leela Krishan had executed a Will in his life time, which was got registered at Serial No. 2743 in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi on 22/5/1996 vide which he had bequeathed all his moveable and immovable properties in favour of the answering defendants in equal shares including remaining 1/2 share of the suit land. Such defendants had taken up various legal objections, including, challenging the locus standi of the plaintiffs to bring the suit and also that the suit was hopelessly time barred. In the end, such defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.