WALI RAM Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Ram alias Hari had a son named Ram Rattan. Ram Rattan has six sons, namely, Des Raj, Vinod Kumar, Parkash Chand, Ramesh Chand, Dharam Paul and Vijay Kumar. In civil suit No. 452-C of 1988, Desh Raj and Vinod Kumar viz. the present respondents 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs and the suit was filed against Wali Ram, the present appellant and Ram Rattan-respondent No. 3 in this appeal. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2 that Hari Ram had made a Will of his property in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and their brothers excluding their father viz. respondent No. 3 of this appeal. Hari Ram died on 11.9.1983. On 25.12.1982, Ram Rattan-respondent No. 3 had contracted to sell 73 Kanals 13 Marlas of land out of the suit land measuring 112 Kanals 8 Marlas to one Bajrang Dass as General Attorney of his father Hari Ram. He took the earnest money.

(2.) On 19.3.1987, i.e., after the death of Hari Ram, Ram Rattan made an agreement of sale of land- in favour of Wali Ram, the present appellant. Suit No. 452-C of 1998 was filed by Des Raj and Vinod Kumar through their mother Satya Devi because they were minors at that time. They have pleaded that by virtue of the Will dated 4.2.1983, they become the owners of the suit land after the death of Hari Ram. However, mutation No. 2200 was wrongly sanctioned on 11.9.1983 in favour of Ram Rattan. Their brothers viz Parkash Chand, Ramesh Kumar and Dharam Paul had already filed a suit against their father and it was decreed on 27.3.1987 holding that sons of Ram Rattan were the owners of the land measuring 112 Kanals and 8 Marlas. On the basis of that decree dated 27.3.1987, mutation No. 2632 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, all the sons of Ram Rattan vide mutation No. 2689 sanctioned on 9 11.1987 partitioned their land amongst themselves. They have further contended that their father Ram Rattan wrongly entered into an agreement of sale of land in question on 19.3.1987 with appellant Wali Ram by receiving a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards earnest money and the possession was wrongly delivered by their father to the appellant. It is also contended that their other three brothers, namely, Parkash Chand, Ramesh Chand and Dharam Pal had already sold their shares vide sale deed dated 15.5.1987 and they had already alienated their shares in the suit land in favour of the vendees and mutation No. 2697 was sanctioned in their favour. The plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 claimed that they are in possession of the suit land but because of the fraudulent agreement of sale dated 19.3.1987 and an affidavit of the even date executed from Ram Rattan, the entries in Khasra girdawari were changed in favour of appellant-defendant No. 1. It is further contended that the agreement of sale is bogus and as a result of fraud it does not bind the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) Plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 have prayed for a decree for declaration that they are the owners in equal shares of land measuring 38 kanals 13 marlas and Ram Rattan has nothing to do with the suit land and the alleged agreement of sale dated 19.3.1987 was bogus and fraudulent document and it does not bind their rights and is liable to be cancelled. They have also sought a declaration that the appellant-defendant No. 1 is wrongly shown as a tenant in respect of the suit land on payment of 1/3rd share of produce as rent and the appellant has been in unauthorised possession of the suit land. They have also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining Ram Rattan from executing any sale deed or transferring the suit land in favour of the appellant and further restraining Ram Rattan from enforcing the alleged agreement of sale dated 19.3.1987.