- (1.) Plaintiffs, who were successful in the trial court, but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, have filed the instant second appeal.
(2.) Plaintiffs in the suit challenged consent decree dated 29.10.1992 suffered by one Fatta in favour of Zile Singh and Sat Narain (defendants No. 1 and 2 herein) and sought consequential relief. Nanhu had three sons i.e. Fatta, Manphool and Moti Ram. Manphool died in the year 1970 or prior to it. His inheritance mutation was sanctioned on 13.08.1970 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 herein, who are his sons. Fatta died in the year 1996. Moti Ram died in the year 2001. Moti Ram's son Ram Diya pre-de-ceased him in the year 1997. Plaintiffs are legal heirs of said Ram Diya being his widow, two minor daughters and a minor son. The plaintiffs alleged that transfer of one-third share of Fatta in the suit land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 by way of consent decree dated 29.10.1992 is null and void. Defendants No. 1 and 2 got the said decree fraudulently without consent and knowledge of Fatta. It was also pleaded mat Fatta never appeared in the suit, in which consent decree was passed nor he filed written statement in that suit nor made statement in Court in mat suit admitting the claim of defendants No. 1 and 2 herein, who were plaintiffs in that suit His thumb impressions might have been obtained by misrepresentation and used to obtain the impugned consent decree. Various other pleas were also raised.
(3.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit and defended the impugned consent decree. It was pleaded that Fatta suffered the same voluntarily. Defendants No. 1 and 2 had been serving Fatta. After death of father of defendants No. 1 and 2, they were brought up by Fatta, who also performed their marriages. Moti Ram (predecessor of plaintiffs) resided separately from Fatta. Various other pleas were also raised. Will allegedly executed by Fatta in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 was also set up.;