RAJKUMAR AND ORS. Vs. NATHI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -defendants, having lost battle before both the Courts below, have invoked second appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC. At the threshold, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') decreed the suit of respondent -plaintiffs for declaratory relief and mandatory injunction, and in the appeal laid at the behest of appellants, Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court') has affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case are that respondent -plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for declaratory decree and perpetual injunction against appellants. The respondent -plaintiffs sought declaration that registered sale -deed dated 8th of June, 2000, in favour of defendant No. 3, for a land measuring 8 bighas, be declared null and void, and further a registered gift deed executed on 7th of June, 2007 in favour of second defendant be also declared as null and void. A perpetual injunction was also sought that appellant -defendants be restrained perpetually from alienating or transferring the agricultural land, which is subject -matter of these two instruments, namely, registered sale -deed and the gift -deed. For claiming these reliefs, the respondent -plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that they are daughters of the first defendant Devilal (since deceased) from his first wife Chando Devi besides their sister Manju. After death of Chando Devi on 29th of September 1983, as per the version of respondent -plaintiffs, defendant Devilal entered into matrimony with Smt. Rukma Devi widow of Late Shri Dilip Kumar Jat. At the time of marriage, Rukma Devi had a son from her earlier husband Late Shri Dilip Kumar, who also joined the family of Devilal in the capacity of son and started living with them. Devilal was the only son of his father Surjaram who, at the time of his death, was owning land in Chak 14 JDW, Tehsil Hanumangarh, details whereof is as under: - -

(3.) TO question the legality of sale -deed, respondent -plaintiffs in the suit have pleaded that the entire sale transaction is sham inasmuch as the same was without any consideration. It is also averred that the sale transaction is under serious cloud for the reason that possession of land was not handed over and the land continued to remain in possession of Devilal, and the revenue record also reflects the same fact. To castigate the sale transaction as a fictitious and sham, respondent -plaintiffs have also pleaded that even after execution of sale -deed, Devilal projected himself as owner of the land and has obtained agricultural loan from financial institution by mortgaging the said land. With all these averments, respondent -plaintiffs pleaded that this entire fraud which was practised by Devilal and Rukma Devi in collusion cannot adversely affect their rights in the agricultural land. Asserting that the agricultural land was ancestral and after amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, w.e.f. 09.09.2005, both the respondent -plaintiffs are co -owners and have share in the property. For claiming their share in the property, according to respondent -plaintiffs, revenue suit filed by them is also pending before the competent Court.