- (1.) PLAINTIFF -respondent Inder Singh (now represented through his LRs) filed the instant suit claiming a declaration to the effect that the suit land measuring 43 kanals 7 marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint is owned and possessed by him and the decree dated 15.2.1977 allegedly obtained by the defendants (now appellants) in their favour is the result of fraud having been obtained by way of impersonation. The plaintiff requested the defendants to recognize his rights in the suit land by saying that the decree was a nullity having been obtained by playing a fraud. However, the defendants refused to accept his request which alleged to filing of the instant suit on 22.1.1982.
(2.) A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants inter alia alleging that in a family arrangement, the plaintiff himself suffered the decree of the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and the said decree was legal and valid. It was further stated that defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit land as tenant under defendants No.1 and 2 as after passing of the decree in question his relationship with the plaintiffrespondent as tenant came to an end. Various other legal objections were also raised with regard to the limitation and jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, the allegations made in the plaint of the suit were reiterated and the defence taken up by the defendants in their written statement was sought to be controverted.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the land in dispute?OPP. 2. Whether the decree dated 15.2.1977 and the mutation dated 30.9.1977 are illegal and are not binding on the plaintiff? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land measuring 35 kanals 19 marlas indispute? OPP. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. 7. In case the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, whether defendant No.3 shall continue in possession of property as a tenant? OPD. 8. Relief." No other issue was claimed by any of the parties. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record and hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit holding that the impugned decree dated 15.2.1977 was legal and binding on the plaintiff and he was no longer the owner of the land in dispute.;