- (1.) This regular second appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the judgment and decree dated 02.11.1983 passed by learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Kurukshetra, has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession, has been dismissed.
(2.) For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. The detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession that he is Class-I heir of deceased Telu Ram and consequently entitled to possession of the suit land owned by Telu Ram. Telu Ram was having a son, namely, Parsa and plaintiff is son of Parsa. It is further averred that Telu Ram was having land in village Gobindgarh, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, village Tangoli, Tehsil Gulha as well as village Nalvi, Tehsil Thanesar. Telu Ram allegedly died about eight years prior to the institution of suit in question and the mutation of the suit land sanctioned in favour of the State Government is illegal, null and void and the stand of the defendant that Telu Ram died without leaving legal heir, is against the facts and law. Plaintiff is the grandson of Telu Ram. When plaintiff came to know that the mutation of the land in question has been wrongly sanctioned, he had filed an appeal against the order sanctioning the mutation before the Collector at Karnal which was accepted and the case was remanded back to A.C. Ist Grade, Thanesar, to decide the case afresh. Thereafter, A.C. Ist Grade again sanctioned the mutation in favour of the defendant/Government and the appeal against this sanctioning order was dismissed. It is averred that plaintiff being Class-I heir of deceased Telu Ram is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased and the land in question has been in illegal possession of the defendant. A notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was served upon the defendant to which defendant sent a reply refusing to admit the claim of the plaintiff over the suit land. Hence, the suit in question was filed.
(3.) Upon notice defendant State filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that deceased Telu was the owner of the suit land but the area given in the suit land is wrongly mentioned as 62 kanals by the plaintiff, in fact, the area is 64 kanals 1 marla. Plea of the plaintiff that deceased Telu was having land at villages Tangoli and Nalvi apart from the suit land was denied for want of knowledge. It is further admitted that mutation of the land measuring 64 kanals 1 marla previously standing in the name of deceased Telu was sanctioned in favour of the defendant State as Telu had died without leaving any heirs. Claim of the plaintiff being grandson of Telu was denied. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement denying the averments in the written statement and reiterating the averments in the plaint.;