Arun Palli, J. - (1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012. Appeal preferred against the said decree also failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013. That is how the plaintiffs are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a suit claiming themselves to be the owners to the extent of their respective 1/8th share in the land measuring 150 bighas 13 biswas comprised in khewat No. 348, khatauni No. 1603 to 1605, khasra No. 124/2 min(12 -11), 125(36 -9), 293/2(12 -17), 289 min(12 -13),2405/2(9 -7), 2411 min(2 -0), 2495/1/1 (1 -19),2497/2(2 -17), 291/2(6 -14), 297/2 min(10 -2), 405 min(6 -19), 292/2( -3), 405 min(6 -18), 297/2 min(12 -0), 297/2 min(8 -6) and 1/8th share in another land measuring 2 bighas 11 biswas khewat No. 2148, khatauni No. 7229, khasra No. 131 min (2 -11). A further declaration was sought that a civil court decree dated 18.12.1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 654 dated 31.10.1984 by Sub Judge 3rd Class, Bathinda, was null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs as the same was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. By way of consequential relief, the injunction was prayed against the defendants from alienating the suit land. In short, the case set out by the plaintiffs was that defendant No. 1 i.e. Jagga Singh son of Arjan Singh, husband of plaintiff No. 1, father of plaintiffs No. 5 and 6, grandfather of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 and father -in -law of plaintiff No. 2, succeeded to an ancestral property. Marriage between Surjit Kaur and defendant No. 1 was stated to have taken place 40 years back but the relation between two deteriorated in 1970 due to the illicit relations maintained by defendant No. 1 with Guddi @ Karamjit Kaur daughter of Karnail Singh. Further, to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs in ancestral property, he illegally suffered a decree dated 18.12.1984 in favour of defendant No. 2 i.e. Manjit Kaur daughter of Arjan Singh without any consideration in a deceitful and fraudulent manner. It was maintained that defendant No. 1 lacked capacity or any right to do so as defendant No. 2 had no pre -existing right in the suit property. Defendant No. 1 taking undue advantage of his position in the family as 'karta', transferred the entire suit land in favour of his sister (defendant No. 2) without any legal necessity or any legal right to do so. Plaintiffs came to know of the said decree in the month of September 2004. Thus, the suit.
(3.) IN the written statement filed by defendant No. 3 i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector, PSEB Patiala, it was maintained that, it was not clarified as to how and why defendant No. 3 was arrayed as a party to the suit. Further, the suit property was acquired by the defendants and the amount of compensation was deposited in the Court. Since the lis was between plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2, defendant No. 3 was not involved in any manner in the suit.;