R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for a moment. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :
(2.) THIS is a defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1987 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1987 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 464 dated 5.12.1984 titled Baldev Singh vs. Amar Singh is null and void, inoperative, against the rights of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs further sought a declaration that they have become owners and in possession of the property mentioned in the head note of the plaint. It was further prayed by the plaintiffs that the decree for permanent injunction be passed in their favour and against the defendants restraining the defendants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the property and further the defendants be restrained from alienating the same in any manner whatsoever. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 5 are the sons while plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are daughters of defendant No. 1 and they are the members of Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. The plaintiffs are unmarried and the lands mentioned in letters C and D in the head note of the plaint are out of land mentioned in letters A and B and that the land mentioned in letters A and B was Joint Family coparcenary/ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that about five years back a family dispute arose between the parties regarding the land which was resolved with the intervention of the relatives and friends and the same ended into oral family settlement in which defendant No. 1 declared the plaintiffs to be owners and in possession of the land mentioned in letters C and D of the head note of the plaint and was fully acted upon by the parties in good faith and bona fide intention and since then the plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the same. It is alleged that against the aforesaid settlement, defendant No. 1 suffered collusive decree dated 17.12.1984 in Civil Suit No. 464 dated 5.12.1984 against him and in favour of defendant No. 5 in respect of the land including the suit land. It is alleged that in case the family settlement is not proved, then the land is still Joint Hindu family coparcenary/ancestral property of the parties and the decree passed in favour of defendant No. 5 against defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void, collusive, inoperative and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs as the same is the result of fraud, mis-representation and undue influence exercised by defendant No. 5 to defendant No. 1. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants are threatening to oust the plaintiffs from the suit land.
(3.) NOTICE of the suit was given to the defendants who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the defendants the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property nor they have any joint Hindu family with the defendants. The suit property is not joint coparcenary property of the parties, rather it is a self-acquired property of defendant No. 1. However, defendant No. 1 admitted the filing of the suit by defendant No. 5 and also passing of the decree and stated that the decree is valid one which is based on family settlement which took place in the family of defendant No. 1 and, as such, the decree confers valid title on defendant No. 5. Since the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit land, therefore, there was no necessity to have their consent before entering into any family settlement in favour of defendant No. 5.;