INDER DEV DUA, J. - (1.) THE pedigree -table reproduced below will be helpful in understanding the dispute: RATTA MAL ______________________|______________________ | | | | Sham Lal Shambu Nath Kunj Lal Mukand Lal defendant 3 defendant 2 defendant 1. | adopted by Madan Gopal Jiwan Ram Plaintiff.
(2.) MADAN Gopal plaintiff son of Sham Lal defendant 3 filed the present suit for a declaration that the haveli in dispute situated at Sirsa with all furnitures and domestic articles is the joint ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have no right or title in it and that the registered document dated the 28th September, 1939, executed between the defendants inter se is illegal, void and unconscionable and, therefore not binding on the plaintiff further relief for possession by way of ejectment from the said haveli and for possession of the articles mentioned in schedule A attached with the plaint has also been claimed against defendant 1. Defendants 1 and 2, as is clear from the pedigree -table, are real brothers of Sham Lal defendant 3, father of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff's case, Kunj Lal defendant 2 had been adopted by his maternal uncle Jiwan Ram in 1905 dining the lifetime of Ratta Mal, plaintiff's grand -father, who died on 10 -12 -1917. Shambu Nath and Mukand Lal executed a deed on 19 -5 -1921 by which they relinquished their rights in the family property including the haveli in question in consideration of the expenses said to have been incurred by Sham Lal defendant 3 (plaintiff's father) on them and their families. On 28 -9 -1939, Sham Lal defendant 3 and Kunj Lal defendant 2 executed a deed purporting to declare the existence of l/3rd share of Mukand Lal defendant 1 in the haveli in suit. According to the plaintiff, after the execution of the deed of 1921, Sham Lal and his descendants became sole owners of the haveli in suit which became their joint Hindu family property. It is further pleaded that the deed of 28 -9 -1939 is in effect a transfer of l/3rd share in this haveli to Mukand Lal defendant and of l/3rd share in the same to Kunj Lal defendant 2. Shambu Nath is alleged to have been left no interest in the family property after the execution of the deed of 1921. Mukand Lal and his family members were permitted to live in this haveli and are, therefore, in possession of a part of it the rest of the haveli it is pleaded, is in pos -session of the plaintiff and his family. With respect to the list of articles claimed by the plaintiff and his family and which are said to be lying in the haveli, some of them have been stated to be in the possession and use of Mukand Lal defendant 1 with the permission of Sham Lal defendant 3, father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be the manager of the joint Hindu family, consisting of his father Sham Lal and his descendant, by appointment owing to his father's old age. It is, in the circumstances, claimed that the execution of the deed dated 28 -9 -1939, which in effect operates as a transfer of 2/3rd share in the haveli in suit, is without consideration, family necessity and is thus illegal and unauthorised it is averred that this document was executed by defendant 3 at the instance of defendants 1 and 2 when he was under their influence.
(3.) MUKAND Lal defendant has among other pleas denied the execution of the deed dated 19 -5 -1921 he has also pleaded that this deed is without consideration and has never been acted upon. He has denied his possession of the haveli to be with the permission of Sham Lal defendant on the other hand, he claims to be in possession of the entire haveli in his own right and adversely to the plaintiff and defendant 3 with the exception of one kothri which, according to him, is in possession of Kunj Lal defendant 2. He has also denied that the deed of 1939 is in effect a transfer on the other hand, he assert that this document was executed with a view to clear doubts, about his title to the property, which appear to have been caused by the registered deed of 1921. Thus, according to him, the document of 1939 merely clarified and declared his existing rights and title to this property. Limitation has also been pleaded by him as also misjoinder of parties and cause of action and nonjoinder of parties the form of the suit has also been objected to and it is further pleaded that the suit is bad on account of inconsistency in pleadings.;