TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA - (1.) PLAINTIFF-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the property as described in the head note of the plaint and further assailed the judgment and decree dated 20.7.1993 in suit titled 'Santosh v. Omkar' as also judgment and decree dated 15.5.1998 in suit titled 'Aman Singh v. Omkar as also the mutations dated 27.9.1993 and 31.8.1998 sanctioned in pursuance thereof. The plaintiff further prayed for the defendants to be permanently restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff pleaded that he was a coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family property i.e. the suit property. The father of the plaintiff, namely, Omkar was the karta and the plaintiff had a right in the suit property by birth. It was alleged that the collusive decree RSA No.1523 of 2011 (O&M) (2) dated 20.7.1993 in civil suit titled 'Santosh v. Omkar' as also decree dated 15.5.1998 titled 'Aman Singh v. Omkar' were mere paper transactions and that his father Omkar had no right to exclude the plaintiff from the Joint Hindu Family property as the same was coparcenary property. Resultantly, even the mutations dated 27.9.1993 and 31.8.1998 sanctioned on the basis of the aforementioned decrees were liable to be set aside. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009 and the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 11.12.2010 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff- appellant thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
(3.) I have heard Mr.MS Randhawa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.;