MAHESH GROVER,J - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned three Regular Second Appeals as they are governed by common set of facts.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that one Uttam Dass claiming himself to be Chela Sher Singh, Chela Kahan Singh filed civil suit No. 75 of 3.2.1986 seeking a declaration to the effect that he is the duly appointed Chela of Sher Singh. In the said proceedings, Sher Singh and one Kuldeep Singh were arrayed as defendants. It was, inter alia, pleaded by Uttam Dass that he was in possession of the land measuring 90 kanals and 5 marlas which is in the ownership of Dera Udasia Rajgarh and that decree dated 18.5.1985 passed in civil suit No. 258 of 2.5.1985 suffered by Sher Singh in favour of Kuldeep Singh is null and void. A prayer for grant of consequential relief of permanent injunction was also made seeking to restrain Kuldeep Singh from alienating the suit land. Uttam Dass further claimed that he was the duly appointed Chela of Sher Singh in the presence of the panchayat after following due procedure governing Udasia sect. Kuldeep Singh, who was one of the defendants in the suit filed by Uttam Dass, also filed civil suit No. 151 of 7.3.1986 for permanent injunction seeking to restrain Uttam Dass, Sucha Singh, Paramjit Singh, Harpal Singh, Mehar Singh, Puran Singh and Sher Singh, Chela Kahan Singh (defendants therein) from interfering in his possession over the land in question and from raising any construction thereon. It was pleaded that the aforesaid persons have no concern with the suit land.
(3.) BOTH the above suits were consolidated by the trial Court vide its order dated 28.11.1986 and the proceedings were directed to be conducted in the suit filed by Uttam Dass in which the following issues were framed : - 1. Whether the plaintiff is the perokar and duly appointed chela of Sher Singh, defendant No. 1 ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff manages the property of the dera on behalf of defendant No. 1 and is in possession of the same as defendant being old and is unable to manage the same ? OPP 3. Whether the decree dated 18.5.1985 was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and is collusive and is not binding being nullity as mentioned in para No. 3 of the plaint ? OPP 4. Whether the mutation No. 975 sanctioned on the basis of the said decree is not binding on the plaintiff ? OPP 5. Whether defendant No. 2 is not duly appointed chela of defendant No. 1 as stated in para No. 4 of the plaint ? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for ? OPP 8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 9. Whether Kuldeep Singh defendant No. 2 is duly appointed mohtmim of the dera as stated in para No. 1 of the written statement ? OPD 10. Relief. After examining the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial Court disposed of both the suits vide judgment dated 25.8.1989. It was declared that the suit land measuring 90 kanals and 5 marlas was owned by Dera Udasia, Rajgarh and that decree dated 18,5,1985 passed in civil suit No. 258 of 1985 and consequential mutation are void. The other prayers made by the Uttam Dass in his suit were declined, whereas the suit filed by Kuldeep Singh was dismissed in toto.;