KAMLA DEVI Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 22/9/2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., vide which, the appeal filed by the present appellants (defendants before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for a declaration that he is the owner in possession of 23/180 shares in the land comprised in Khata No. 21, Khatauni No. 32 to 37, Kita 18, measuring 1/49/7 hectares, situated in Mohal Thore, Upparli Mauza, Gangote, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'), by virtue of Sale Deed dtd. 21/6/1991, registered before Sub Registrar Dehra and judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 225/91 titled Kamla Devi vs. Ichhye Devi etc. decided on 23/9/1991 passed by learned Sub Judge, Dehra is collusive, illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. A permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from executing the decree or interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff was also sought.

(3.) It was pleaded that the suit land is recorded to be owned and possessed by defendants no. 1 to 10 and 13. In the Jamabandi, defendant No. 13 sold 23/180 shares in the suit land through her General Power of Attorney Hari Krishan to the plaintiff vide Sale Deed dtd. 21/6/1991, registered before the Sub Registrar, Dehra, for a sum of Rs.35,000.00. Mutation No. 121 was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 13 was left with no share in the Khata after the sale. Defendants No.11, 12 and 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 225 of 1991 against defendants No. 13, 10, 7, 8, 3 and 2 titled Kamla Devi etc. vs Ichhye Devi etc., seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of the entire Khata. The suit was compromised on 23/9/1991. The compromise was collusive and the decree was obtained by concealment of the facts. This compromise was effected to frustrate the rights of the plaintiffs. The judgment, decree and the mutation based on the same are wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The defendants were requested to acknowledge the title of the plaintiff but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed for seeking the relief mentioned above.