- (1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.1999. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was accordingly dismissed on 25.11.2009. That is how, defendants No.2, 4 and 5 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.) In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, they prayed for a declaration that they and the defendants were co-sharers of the properties described in Annexures A & B, being coparceners and the alleged family settlement, dated 27.09.1984, was result of fraud and misrepresentation. And thus void ab-initio. A decree for injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property, was also prayed for. It was pleaded that plaintiffs were descendants of Ganeshi Lal son of Jawala Parsad. Ganeshi Lal had two sons, namely, Hira Lal and Manohar Lal. Hira Lal died issueless whereas Manohar Lal (defendant No.1) had two wives i.e. Vidhya and Santra. Vidhya died after giving birth to Sajjan (father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4) and Rattan (defendant No.3). Whereas, Gulshan (defendant No.4) and Raju (defendant No.5) were born out of wedlock with Santra (defendant No.2). It was maintained that the property, detailed in Annexure A, was ancestral qua the plaintiffs, as the same was inherited by Manohar from his father Ganeshi Lal. Property described in Annexure B was purchased by Ganeshi Lal and he raised construction thereon. Since these properties were inherited by Manohar Lal, thus all the parties to the lis were coparceners and had a status of co-sharer. It was averred that the parties were in possession of their respective shares to the extent of 1/5th share each, meaning thereby, 1/5th share was held by plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and 1/5th share each was held by defendants No.1, 3, 4 & 5. However, Santra (defendant No.2) exercised undue influence on Manohar Lal and coerced him to give the entire property to her sons. Post death of Sajjan Kumar, plaintiff No.4 was completely dependent upon her father-in-law i.e. Manohar Lal. Taking benefit of faith of plaintiff No.4, defendant No.1 obtained her signatures on a blank paper on the pretext that a reply was to be filed in some litigation. And it was in the year 1988, plaintiff No.4 was revealed by Manohar Lal and Santra that they had obtained her signatures on a family settlement and pursuant thereto, she only had a concern with one kotha and a tibari, situated in the eastern portion of the property. Since the alleged family settlement was never executed and plaintiff never consented thereto, the same was a result of fraud and misrepresentation.
(3.) Thus, it could not be held to be binding qua the interest of plaintiffs No.1 to 3, who were minors at the time of execution of the said document.;