T.P.S.MANN, J. - (1.) PRESENT respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a suit in representative capacity, being co-sharers of Shamlat Deh of village Jawan, against the present appellant and respondents No. 5 to 8, wherein they sought declaration that decree dated 12.5.1972 passed in suit No. 10 dated 30.11.1971 was null and void and not binding upon them being obtained by fraud, collusion, illegal and without jurisdiction. They also sought consequential relief of possession. This suit was decreed by learned Sub Judge, IInd Class, Faridabad on 11.5.1983. Aggrieved of the same, the present appellant, along with respondents No. 7 and 8, filed an appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad on 4.8.2004. Hence, the present second appeal.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs was that Rattan Singh had filed suit No. 10 dated 30.11.1971 against Nathi, Bhajan Lal, Thakar Lal and others in representative capacity which suit was decreed on admission. It was alleged that the suit land was earlier transferred from Panchayat Deh to Shamlat Deh and mutation had, accordingly, been sanctioned. Later on, Pattan Singh hatched a conspiracy with Nathi and others so as to deprive the village Panchayat of the suit land and, accordingly, suit No. 10 dated 30.11.1971 was filed by him, wherein he claimed himself to be a tenant on the suit land for 30 years, knowing full well that he was not a tenant as such. Nathi and two others admitted his claim and the suit came to be decreed on 12.5.1972. Mutation No. 34 was entered in favour of Rattan Singh, but the same was illegal as based upon decree dated 12.5.1972 which had been obtained by collusion and fraud.The plaintiffs in the present suit came to know of the decree only in the year 1980 and they, thus, sought the setting aside of the same. Rattan Singh, Bhajan Lal and Thakur Lal opposed the suit by filing a written statement pleading therein that the plaintiffs were estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit; that the suit had not been filed properly under Order 1 Rule C.P.C.; that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit. These defendants, however, admitted the plaintiffs to be the residents of village Jawan, but denied that they were co-sharers and partners in the suit land. They also denied that any conspiracy was hatched by Rattan Singh- defendant, when he filed the suit, which was thereafter decreed on 12.5.1972. They, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
(3.) IT may not be out of place to mention here that Nathi-defendant No. 2 in the present suit, filed his independent written statement, wherein he admitted the claim of the plaintiffs.;