PUSHPA DEVI Vs. KESRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals have been directed against the impugned order dated 13.1.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that appellants -plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed No. 80 dated 19.5.2011 executed by the original defendant No. 1 Smt. Mathru, (deceased, succeeded by the respondent No. 1 being her husband) in favour of respondent No. 2 to 4 is wrong, illegal, null and void and the same does not confer any right, title and interest unto the respondent No. 2 to 4, over and above her actual share in the suit land, as such transfer in excess of the share is illegal and not binding upon the appellants. Consequential mutation No. 305 dated 7.6.2001 sanctioned pursuant to the sale deed No. 80 was also wrong, illegal, null and void. The appellants -plaintiffs also laid challenge to the mutation No. 261 dated 15.10.1985 sanctioned in favour of the deceased defendant No. 1. Smt. Mathru, with respect to the estate of Smt. Dhauli, attested behind the back of the appellants -plaintiffs, the same being wrong, illegal, null and void. The revenue entries showing the defendant No. 1 to be owner in possession of 42 Bighas and 15 Biswas of and are wrong and against the facts. The same are also not binding on the appellants. The appellants further claimed that one Dharma had three sons named Shri Kirpa, Shri Matha and Shri Mastia alias Mast Ram. Shri Kirpa Ram had one daughter Smt. Mathru, the original defendant No. 1 (now deceased, succeeded by her husband Shri Kesri Ram, the respondent No. 1). Smt. Mathru was having 1/3rd share in the suit land, which she inherited from her mother (paternal side). The second son of Shri Dharma namely Shri Matha died intestate and his widow Smt. Dhauli succeeded to his estate. Smt. Dhauli also died intestate on 23.2.1976 leaving behind no issue and she was succeeded by sole alive son of Shri Dhama namely Shri Mast Ram @ Mastia. Shri Mastia executed a Will in favour of the present appellants and as such the entire estate of Shri Mastia devolved upon the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are owner in possession of the suit land i.e. qua the share of Shri Matha and Mastia. The alleged mutation No. 261 dated 15.10.1985 showing the defendant No. 1 to be sole successor of deceased Dhauli is wrong, illegal, null and void and does not confer any right, title and interest in favour of Smt. Mathru, the original defendant No. 1. The sale deed No. 80 executed by Smt. Mathru, over and above her 1/3rd share, is also wrong having no binding effect on the appellants.

(3.) THE respondents No. 2 to 4 filed a separate written statement and took plea of bonafide purchaser for consideration and denied the claim of the appellants on merits.