- (1.) IN village Salim-sar-Majra, there lived a widower Chandgi Ram. He owned and possessed agricultural land measuring 65 kanals - 2 marlas, fully described in the plaint. He had no male issue but Smt. Chhoto was his daughter who was married to Lal Chand of village Kheri Daman, Sardar Singh who was a total stranger exploited the weaknesses of Chandgi Ram, exercised undue influence upon him and in order to grab his property obtained a collusive decree dated 17. 2. 1975 in Civil Suit No. 116/i instituted on 13. 2. 1975 alleging that he was his adopted son. On the basis of the said decree, mutation No. 1777 on 12. 5. 1977 was also sanctioned in favour of said Sardar Singh defendant No. l. The suit land was shown to have been allegedly transferred in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 although no consideration had passed. Smt. Chhoto when came to know all these facts instituted Civil Suit No. 517 of 1985 on 26. 7. 1979 against Sardar Singh his father Chandgi Ram and alleged vendees Raghunath and Ram Chander for a decree of declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 17. 2. 1975 and the mutation consequent thereupon, was illegal and had no adverser effect on her rights of succession and that after the death of her father Chandgi Ram, she was entitled to succeed to his estate.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants. Two sets of written statements, one on behalf of Sardar Singh and Chandgi Ram and other on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 4, the: vendees, were filed. In the first set of written statement defendants took the stand that Sardar Singh defendant No. l was adopted as a son by defendant No. 2 on 6. 6. 1968 and the adoption deed was got executed on 29. 12. 1970. Thereafter, the partition of the entire properties was effected between defendants No. 1 and 2 wherein defendant No. 1 got the entire suit land whereas defendant No. 2 got the entire cash and jewellery. The factum of the partition was affirmed in decree of February 17, 1975. The defendant No. 1 became exclusive owner of the suit land. He sold the same to defendants No. 3 to 4 for an amount of Rs. 11,20,000/- vide sale deed dated 26. 7. 1979. Defendant No. 2 had also executed a valid will on 29. 12. 1970 bequeathing his property to Sardar Singh. Objections with regard to locus-standi, limitation and maintainability of the suit were taken. It was denied that the plaintiff was the daughter of Chandgi Ram. Defendants No. 3 and 4 had naturally supported the case of defendants No. 1 and 2.
(3.) THE learned trial Court held: ( i) that the plaintiff was the daughter of Chandgi Ram; (ii) that Sardar Singh was validly adopted as on by defendant No. 2 Chandgi Ram as his son; (iii) that vide decree dated 17. 2. 1975 passed in Civil Suit No. 116/1 instituted on 13. 2. 1975 (Sardar Singh v. Cahdgi Ram), no valid title in respect of the suit land had passed in favour of defendant No. 1 Sardar Singh; (iv) that the will dated 17. 2. 1975 was riddled with suspicious circumstances which could not be dispelled by the defendant and, therefore, the conclusion is that Chandgi Ram had not executed a valid will in favour of Sardar Singh. (v) plaintiff was the only daughter of Chandgi Ram deceased, whereas Sardar Singh is proved to be his adopted son, so both of them were entitled to succeed to the estate of Chandgi Ram in equal shares; (vi) that sale of the suit land in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 vide registered sale deed Ex. D-6 was valid to the extent of 1/2 share of the vendor Sardar Singh whereas in respect of remaining 1/2 share vendee-defendants were in possession against the charge of Rs* 60,000/ -. Smt. Chhoto was entitled to take back the posession of 1/2 share on payment of the said amount of Rs. 60,000/-; (vii) that on the death of Chandgi Ram, the suit was amended for a decree of possession and, therefore, the same was within limitation; and (viii) that the plaintiff had a cause of action to bring he suit which was maintainable. Consequently, the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sonepat vide his judgment and decree dated 30. 11. 1985 decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/2 share and she was allowed to take possession of 1/2 share and she was allowed to take possession of 1/2 of the suit land from the vendees on payment of Rs. 60,000/ -. ;