- (1.) These two connected regular second appeals are being decided together as the same are based on identical set up of facts and raise similar issues. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RSA No. 3455 of 2013.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, thereby dismissing their suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction, plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of these two regular second appeals. Two identical suits were filed, which were decided vide common judgment. Similarly, both first appeals were also decided together.
(3.) Facts giving rise to these appeals, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in paras 2 to 6 of the impugned judgment, are that there was one Patram who was owner of 87 kanal 4 marla land (suit property) situated in village Lokri, Tehsil Pataudi, Distt. Gurgaon. This Patram died on 17.05.1990 without leaving behind any issue and his widow. The plaintiffs in 1st suit claim themselves to have preferential legal rights of succession viz a viz defendants and they claim that defendant no. 1 Satbir had no right, title and interest in the suit property. Defendant no.1 (Satbir) filed Civil Suit No. 462 of 1990 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon and succeeded in getting a false and fabricated decree in that suit dated 26.03.1990. These were the allegations of the plaintiffs in this suit that said decree has been obtained by Satbir defendant no. 1 by impersonation, forgery, fraud because Satbir was never adopted by the aforesaid Patram. On the basis of decree dated 26.03.1990 Satbir got entered mutation no. 916 dated 17.05.1990 in his favour. It was further pleaded that said Patram was murdered by Satbir on 17.05.1990 and even last rites of Patram were performed by Kamal son of Dhanna and Shoop Singh under the supervision of police and not by Satbir. The plaintiff further claimed that they excluded defendants of 1st Civil suit for the purpose of succession being reversioners related to Patram through Turti their common ancestor in the strip of their ancestor Jodha. They claimed that they are successor interest being coparceners in line of descent. They further claimed that judgment and decree dated 26.03.1990 and mutation no. 916 dated 17.05.1990 sanctioned on the basis of it are not binding on their reversionary rights. it was further stand of the plaintiffs that they came to know about collusion amongst defendants when defendants tried to take possession of the suit land on the basis of complaint filed in the court of SDM Gurgaon. Defendants no. 2 to 9 (purchaser of land in 1st suit) purchased 103 kanal 19 maria land from Satbir by various sale deeds dated 17.10.1996, 17.10.1996, 18.10.1996 and 22.10.1996 which are also challenged by the plaintiffs on the ground that same are illegal, without consideration.;