- (1.) Defendant no. 1 Ram Singh having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.
(2.) Respondents no. 1 to 8/plaintiffs filed suit against defendant no. 1-appellant and against proforma respondents no. 9 to 11 as defendants no. 2 to 4. All the 8 plaintiffs are daughters of Manphool Singh whereas defendant no. 2 Subhash is son of Manphool Singh. Plaintiffs' case is that they along with defendant no. 2 inherited the land measuring 53 kanals comprised of khasra no. 959 from their father Manphool Singh in equal shares vide mutation no. 13230 dated 14.5.2002 and are accordingly owners in possession thereof to the extent of 1/9th share each. However, land in dispute was declared surplus by the Government vide mutation no. 10143. However, the land was transferred back to the owners vide order dated 9.3.1987 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak and mutation no. 131-K was sanctioned in favour of the owners i. e. plaintiffs and defendant no. 2. The said matter is, however, pending in this Court in CWP Nos. 6026 and 6021 of 1990 which stand admitted and dispossession has been stayed. In the revenue record, the plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 are recorded to be owners in possession of the suit land in equal shares. However, defendant no. 2 in collusion with other defendants and by fraud sold part of the aforesaid land to defendant no. 1 vide sale deed dated 31.1.2005 depicting the said land to be located within Lal Dora of the village as per certificate obtained from Sarpanch whereas in fact the suit land is situated outside Lal Dora. The aforesaid sale deed is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.
(3.) Defendants no. 2 to 4 were proceeded against ex parte. Only defendant no. 1-appellant contested the suit. Averments made in the plaint were controverted. It was pleaded that the suit plot purchased by him falls within Lal Dora of the village as also certified by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Defendant no. 1 claimed to be bonafide purchaser of the suit plot for valuable consideration. It was pleaded that the suit plot falls within the Abadi Deh and defendant no. 1 is owner in possession thereof.;