Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 07.10.05, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, and, the judgement and decree, dated 04.09.07, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which, it dismissed, the appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, Bagrawat son of Parbhu (since deceased), was the owner of the land, in dispute. It was stated that after his death, in the year 1944, the plaintiff, being minor, mutation No. 884, in respect of the land, in dispute, was illegally sanctioned, in favour of Ram Piari, defendant No. 4. It was further stated that Ram Piari. suffered a decree, in respect of the land, in dispute, in Civil Suit No. 295 of 1994, titled as Bhal Singh and others v. Smt. Ram Piari. It was further stated that the decree dated 09.03.94, was illegally passed, in utter violation of law, as the plaintiff, was the only legal heir to the estate of Ram Piari, who had suffered the same, under pressure of defendants No. 1 to 3, as no family settlement, was arrived at, between the parties. It was further stated that the decree dated 09.03.94, was not got registered. It was further stated that Sheo Narain, defendant No. 3, had no right to transfer his 1/9 share, out of the total land, measuring 170 kanals 14 marlas, situated at village lnchha Kharkhari, in favour of his brother namely Het Ram, through Civil Court decree dated 01.08.94. It was further stated that defendant No. 4, was an illiterate and Parda Nashin lady, and, as such, she was forced, to suffer the decree dated 09.03.94, by defendants No. 1 to 3. The defendants, were many a time, asked to admit the claim of the plaintiff, over the entire land, in dispute, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for possession was filed.

3. Defendants No. 1, 2, 3, and 5, filed separate written statements, wherein, they took up similar objections, and contested the suit. It was stated that the suit was barred by the principles of resjudicata, as the plaintiff, had filed a suit, in the year 1978, with regard to the entire property, which was dismissed, on 06.09.78. It was further stated that the decrees, in question, were legal and valid, as Ram Piari, defendant No. 4, was the absolute owner of the property, in dispute, and she had got every right, to alienate the same, in the manner, she liked.

4. Defendant No. 4, filed a separate written statement, stating therein, that she suffered the decree, in question, of her own volition, without any pressure. It was further stated that she inherited the land, in dispute, after the death of her husband namely Bagrawat, as per Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937. It was further stated that limited right of defendant No. 4, with regard to the land, in dispute, was converted into absolute right of ownership, after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, as she was in possession thereof, at the relevant time. It was further stated that she, being the absolute owner in possession of the land, in dispute, had every right, to suffer the decree, in respect thereof, and the plaintiff, had no right, to challenge the same. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:-

(i) Whether the judgement and decree dated 09.03.94 passed by Sh. S.K. Gupta, SJIC, Hisar, in Civil Suit No. 295 of 1994, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 regarding the land measuring 218 kanal 4 marlas comprised in khewat No. 114, khatoni No. 273-74, situated in village Kajlan, Tehsil and Distt. Adampur, and further l/3rd share in land measuring 170 kanal 14 marlas comprised in khewat No. 42, khatoni No. 42, situated in village Inchha Kharkari, Tehsil Adampur, are illegal, void, without jurisdiction thus not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, therefore, liable to be set aside? OPP

(ii) Whether the judgement and decree dated 01.08.94, passed by Sh. S.K