- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffappellant wherein the suit for declaration has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant claimed declaration that he was exclusive owner of the land measuring 70 kanals 5 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Chhappar Mansurpur Hadbast No.443 as per Jamabandi for the year 1991-92, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamunanagar. It is alleged that the lease deed dated 29.11.1995 made in favour of defendant-respondent No.2 and the judgment and decree in favour of defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 passed by the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) Jagadhri in Civil Suit No.87-CS of 1996 decided on 03.02.1996 were null and void and a result of fraud and forgery played upon Late Asharfi Devi. The subsequent mutation No.1234 and 1264 sanctioned on the basis of lease deed and the judgment and decree were null and void and plaintiff-appellant was the exclusive owner of the land detailed in the head-note on the basis of a registered and valid will dated 21.02.1994 executed by Late Asharfi Devi and accordingly, he was entitled for permanent injunction regarding the land in dispute. The plaint was based on the ground that Late Asharfi Devi was the sister of the mother of the plaintiff-appellant and that the mother of the plaintiff-appellant had died when he was only three years old and looked after him as a son as she was issueless. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant passed his matriculation examination and got a job in Delhi and he took Smt.Asharfi Devi to Delhi but he used to visit the Village Chhappar Mansurpur and looked after her land and she was recorded in actual and physical possession of the suit land in the revenue records also. The defendant-respondents were alleged to be distant relations of Smt.Asharfi Devi and had an evil eye on the property of Smt.Asharfi Devi and thus were always in search of some occasion to grab and extract the property of Asharfi Devi. It was alleged that in November, 1995, Jagbir Singh and Charan Singh(defendant-respondent No.1) sons of Nain Singh went to Delhi to see Asharfi Devi with a story that one uncle of her's was in serious condition and wanted to see her. Asharfi Devi was accordingly sent to the village with the said persons and the defendantrespondents, taking advantage of the old age of Smt.Asharfi Devi, get the lease deed dated 03.02.1996 in favour of defendant-respondent No.2, Mahipal Singh, son of Nain Singh without paying any consideration to her.
(3.) The said lease deed was thus a result of fraud and forgery and liable to be set aside. It was contended that Asharfi Devi was kept by the defendantrespondents and not allowed to be seen and the plaintiff-appellant was threatened with dire consequences and a DDR in this regard was also lodged. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the defendant-respondents had a collusive decree in their favour on 03.02.1996 and the said lease deed and the judgment and decree are a result of fraud as Asharfi Devi was 80 years of age and not aware of rights and wrongs. It was also contended that in Civil Suit No.87/CS of 196, a family settlement had been set up and there was no relationship of joint Hindu family between the defendantrespondents and Late Asharfi Devi and defendant-respondents had no preexisting rights between the parties and that she had executed registered will dated 21.02.1994 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, and therefore, he was the owner of the said properties left by Late Asharfi Devi. It was alleged that defendant-respondents had also taken possession of the house of Asharfi Devi and were in illegal and unauthorized possession of the residential house and the plaintiff-appellant requested many times to admit his claim and on the denial of the same, the suit had been filed.;