- (1.) The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were entitled to 1/3rd share in all the suit land detailed in paras No. 2A, 2B and 2C of the plaint, correction of the revenue record, to restrain the defendants from ousting them from the joint user and also from alienating the suit land. The plaintiffs and defendants are related to each other. In order to understand their relation, the following pedigree table is reproduced:-- According to the aforesaid pedigree table, Jas Ram was the common ancestor of the parties who had three sons, namely, Shiv Sahai, Partap and Khushali. Khushali was issueless and had adopted Sukhi S/o. Shiv Sahai. Sukhi had further two sons, namely, Mam Chand and Gian Chand. Mam Chand is the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 and Gian Chand of plaintiffs No. 7 to 9. After the death of Jas Ram, the suit property was inherited by his three sons in equal shares. After the death of Khushali, his 1/3rd share was inherited by his adopted son Sukhi and after his death, his 1/3rd share was inherited by his two sons Mam Chand and Gian Chand. After the death of Mam Chand, his share was inherited by plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 and share of Gian Chand was inherited by plaintiffs No. 7 to 9, but due to mistake of the revenue authorities, suit land was not reflected in the name of Sukhi to the extent of 1/3rd share, which came to the notice of the plaintiffs on 03.02.2003 when they obtained copy of the jamabandi from the Patwari. The defendants, on the basis of wrong and illegal entries in the description of the shares, were trying to oust the plaintiffs and to alienate more than 2/3rd share, therefore, the need to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has arisen.
(2.) After notice, defendants No. 1 to 11, 13, 15, 17 and 21 appeared and filed their joint written statement denying that Sukhi S/o. Shiv Sahai was adopted by Khushali. It was stated that Khushali had died issueless and thus, the plaintiffs have no right in the land measuring 13 kanal 10 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Piala, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and the matter relating to his land has already been decided between the parties by the Court of Sh. S.K. Garg, Addl. Civil Judge, Faridabad on 17.01.2001 in the suit titled as "Smt. Chironi v. Khem Chand etc.". The appeal filed against the order dated 17.01.2001 was also dismissed on 11.09.2003. It was also denied that the plaintiffs have any share in the suit property mentioned in para No. 2C of the plaint, but the share of the plaintiffs in the land described in paras No. 2(A) and 2(B) is also 1/8th and not 1/3rd, as alleged. It is also submitted that Sukhi was son of Shiv Sahai, therefore, there was no question of his inheriting the share of Khushali.
(3.) The other defendants were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.11.2003 and 09.09.2004.;