PAWAN KUMAR Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 29.2.2008, the second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, can be stated thus. The parties to the appeal belong to the same family. Respondent Tilak Raj and the donor of the suit property namely, Tehsildar (now dead) were the real brothers. Said Shri Tehsildar is stated to have executed the gift deed Ext.PW-1/A dated 24.6.1981 in favour of Respondent/plaintiff Tilak Raj qua his shore which was got registered on 10.7.1981. The mutation was got entered on the basis of this gift deed, but the revenue officer rejected the same and attested the mutation in favour of the parties to the suit on the basis of inheritance. Respondent/plaintiff Tilak Raj filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he has been in exclusive possession of share of Tehsildar qua the suit land on the basis of gift-deed and the Appellant/defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land and the mutation No. 3409 in their favour qua the estate of Tehsildar was wrong, illegal and nonest on his rights. Thus prayed a decree of declaration with consequential relief of injunction.

(3.) The suit was resisted and contested by the Appellant/defendants. They took up the plea of limitation, estoppel and also questioned the maintainability of the suit vis-a-vis the objection that it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, by way of preliminary objections. On merits, they denied the execution of the gift-deed in favour of the Plaintiff and further contended that said Shri Tehsildar was not competent to execute the same and alleged that it was a forged and sham-transaction. It was also contended that Tehsildar was an illiterate and rustic villager. They supported the mutation of inheritance qua the estate of deceased Tehsildar.