Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) APPELLANT -defendants, having lost battle before both the Courts below, have invoked second appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC. At the threshold, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') decreed the suit of respondent -plaintiffs for declaratory relief and mandatory injunction, and in the appeal laid at the behest of appellants, Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court') has affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case are that respondent -plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for declaratory decree and perpetual injunction against appellants. The respondent -plaintiffs sought declaration that registered sale -deed dated 8th of June, 2000, in favour of defendant No. 3, for a land measuring 8 bighas, be declared null and void, and further a registered gift deed executed on 7th of June, 2007 in favour of second defendant be also declared as null and void. A perpetual injunction was also sought that appellant -defendants be restrained perpetually from alienating or transferring the agricultural land, which is subject -matter of these two instruments, namely, registered sale -deed and the gift -deed. For claiming these reliefs, the respondent -plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that they are daughters of the first defendant Devilal (since deceased) from his first wife Chando Devi besides their sister Manju. After death of Chando Devi on 29th of September 1983, as per the version of respondent -plaintiffs, defendant Devilal entered into matrimony with Smt. Rukma Devi widow of Late Shri Dilip Kumar Jat. At the time of marriage, Rukma Devi had a son from her earlier husband Late Shri Dilip Kumar, who also joined the family of Devilal in the capacity of son and started living with them. Devilal was the only son of his father Surjaram who, at the time of his death, was owning land in Chak 14 JDW, Tehsil Hanumangarh, details whereof is as under: - - After death of Surjaram, the said property was mutated in the name of Devilal in revenue records in the year 1998 and same continued to remain in his possession. Making serious insinuations against Smt. Rukma Devi, respondent -plaintiffs categorically averred in the plaint that Devilal after marrying Rukma Devi remained under her influence and started ill -treating the respondent -plaintiffs. Respondent -plaintiffs have set out a specific case that their marriages were solemnized by grandfather during his lifetime and after his death their father Devilal virtually stopped treating them as his daughters and ignored them for all practical purposes and also deprived them of his love and affection. Respondent -plaintiffs further pleaded that Devilal and Smt. Rukma Devi hatched a conspiracy to deprive them of their share in the agricultural land and when it came to their notice, they instituted a civil suit on 12th of February, 2008 for partition and declaration of their rights with respect to the agricultural land before the revenue Court, i.e., Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh. In that suit, a reply was jointly filed revealing that out of total agricultural land situated at Stone No. 54/233 in Killa No. 1 to 4/1.012, 5/0.126, 7/0.089, 8/0.164, 9 -10/.506, 11/0.127, (total 2.024 hectares) eight bighas of land was transferred to defendant No. 3 by a registered sale -deed dated 08.06.2000 and part of agricultural land situated at Stone No. 54/233 in Kila No. 6/0.0190, 14 to 17/.987, 18/.062 at Stone No. 55/238 Kila No. 11 to 20/2.530, 21 to 25/0.885 at Stone No. 54/238, Kila No. 16 to 18/.759, 23 to 25/.531, (total 5.944 hectare) has been donated to Mangi Lal by a registered gift -deed dated 7th of June, 2007. Categorizing both these instruments as null and void, the respondent -plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that these two instruments are ineffective vis   -vis their rights in the aforesaid agricultural land, and therefore, to the extent these documents be declared null and void.
(3.) TO question the legality of sale -deed, respondent -plaintiffs in the suit have pleaded that the entire sale transaction is sham inasmuch as the same was without any consideration. It is also averred that the sale transaction is under serious cloud for the reason that possession of land was not handed over and the land continued to remain in possession of Devilal, and the revenue record also reflects the same fact. To castigate the sale transaction as a fictitious and sham, respondent -plaintiffs have also pleaded that even after execution of sale -deed, Devilal projected himself as owner of the land and has obtained agricultural loan from financial institution by mortgaging the said land. With all these averments, respondent -plaintiffs pleaded that this entire fraud which was practised by Devilal and Rukma Devi in collusion cannot adversely affect their rights in the agricultural land. Asserting that the agricultural land was ancestral and after amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, w.e.f. 09.09.2005, both the respondent -plaintiffs are co -owners and have share in the property. For claiming their share in the property, according to respondent -plaintiffs, revenue suit filed by them is also pending before the competent Court.;