DHAPA DEVI Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellantsplaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') against the judgment and decree dtd. 27/5/1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 284/95, whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short 'the defendants') to the effect that Late Sh. Fateh Singh was having three wives including plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi and other two wives namely Smt. Chandrakala Devi and Smt. Madan Kanwar. The plaintiff No.1-Smt Dhapa Devi is having three sons namely Mohan Singh, Ratan Singh and Amar Singh @ Ashok Singh from wedlock of Late Sh. Fateh Singh. Mohan Singh and Ratan Singh were having separate agricultural land and Amar Singh @ Ashok Singh being minor was living with his mother Smt. Dhapa Devi and father Late Sh. Fateh Singh. So, land admeasuring 63 bigha 7 biswa of Khasra No.438 situated in village Sankotda was recorded in the khadedari of plaintiffs and their names were entered through mutation on 5/10/1977. The plaintiffs were in possession of the said land. Late Sh. Fateh Singh was not happy with the plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi and under the pressure of his other sons, he left the plaintiff No.1. Later on, plaintiffs came to know that Late Sh. Fateh Singh prepared forged Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs and on the basis of said forged Power of Attorney of plaintiffs, registered sale deed was executed on 27/8/77. The plaintiffs prayed that the Power of Attorney as well as sale deed was executed on account of forged documents, so it should be declared as null and void.

(3.) The defendants replied the averments of the plaint and submitted that plaintiff No.1-Smt. Dhapa Devi is not wife of Late Sh. Fateh Singh and he had already given 15 bigha each to Mohan Singh and Ratan Singh. The present suit is not maintainable on account of Sec. 7 of the Family Court Act. So, plaint should be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_15_LAWS(RAJ)3_2025_1.JPG</IMG>