ROOP RAM Vs. TARA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court whereby he reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the instant regular second appeal.

(2.) The parties shall be referred to as the 'plaintiff' and the 'defendants'.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are that one Kanshia, a resident of village Hiun Jajah, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur,H.P. co-owned a parcel of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 14/51, Khasra Nos. 335/206 and 337/211, measuring 5 bighas 17 biswas and Khata Khatauni No. 6min/32/31, Khasra No. 209, measuring 1 bigha 9 biswas, situated in mauza Hiun Jajah, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur and bequeathed his share therein along with other property in favour of his sister's son Megha, who was living with him at Hiun Jajah. It was averred that in the same village, Megha had his self acquired property comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 1min/4, Khasra No.354/212, measuring 3 bighas 17 biswas. Besides this, he has some landed property in village Sahroj which was about 7-8 kilometres away from village Hiun Jajah. Megha willed away his entire property movable and immovable in favour of his youngest brother Roop Ram, the plaintiff, vide Will dated January 11, 1983, Ex. PW5/A. He died on January 25, 1983 and the ownership of his property in village Sahroj was mutated in favour of the plaintiff vide mutation No. 85 dated December 21, 1983, Ex.PW1/A. However, ownership of the property bequeathed by Kanshia in favour of Megha was not mutated in favour of the plaintiff and the same had been mutated in favour of Janki, who claimed to be the wife of Kanshia on the latter's demise in July 1982. The plaintiff challenged the mutation which was ultimately cancelled and a mutation in respect of Kanshia's property bequeathed in favour of Megha came to be sanctioned in favour of Mathi, even though, she was in no way related to Megha. It was further averred that on the basis of this mutation, Mathi sold part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 354/212, measuring 3 bighas 17 biswas in favour of Shyam Dutt, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 2 to 6 vide sale deed dated July 8, 1990, Ex.DW1/B and gifted the remaining suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 335/206, 337/211 and 209, measuring 7 bighas 6 biswas in favour of Shyam Dutt's brother Hem Raj (defendant No.1) vide gift deed dated November 23, 1992. The plaintiff, therefore, had filed the suit for declaration that he is owner and in possession of the suit land and that the sale deed dated July 8, 1990 and the gift deed dated November 23, 1992, executed by Mathi, are illegal, null and void, fraudulent and not binding on him and further the mutations effected on the basis of deeds were also be declared null and void. Lastly, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from alienating or encumbering the suit land.