SABINA, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the parties were related to each other. THE pedigree table as reproduced in para 2 of the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court is as under :- Roop Ram I ------------------------------------------------- I I Munga Ram Mukanda Ram (died in the year 1954) (died issueless in 1960) I Gayarsi Devi (died in the year 1960) I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I Omkar Matadin Tulsi Ram (died issueless in 1940) (died in 1941) (defendant) I I Smt. Kalawati (wife) I (died in 1958) Bhagoti (plaintiff) Munga Ram died in the year 1954 and after his death his share was inherited by his wife Gayarsi Devi, his son Tulsi Ram and daughter in law Kalawati widow of Matadin. Matadin died in the year 1941. Gayarsi Devi died in the year 1968 and after her death the land belonging to her share was inherited by her son Tulsi Ram, daughter in law and plaintiff. Kalawati died in the year 1958 and after her death the land belonging to her share was also inherited by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant had become owners of the suit land to the extent of half share. Defendant had illegally got sanctioned mutation No.271 dated 21.5.1994 in his favour qua the whole land. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Matadin. Gayarsi Devi after the death of Munga Ram had inherited his property. Plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. Plaintiff had challenged the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant after the period of limitation. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/2 share of the disputed land as mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether the mutation No.271 dated 21.5.1954 and order dated 28.10.1996 passed by revenue authorities are illegal, wrong, null and void ?OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 4.Whether the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is not daughter in law of Sh. Munga Ram, if so to what effect ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not within limitation ? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed land up to 1/2 share, as such she is not entitled to any relief ? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present suit ?OPD. 9. Relief.
(3.) VIDE judgment and decree dated 12.1.2005, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rewari decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld in an appeal, filed by legal representatives No.1, 3 and 4 of defendant Tulsi Ram, by Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2008. Hence, the present appeal by legal representatives No.1 to 4 of defendant Tulsi Ram. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.;