Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - As the Courts below duly recapitulated and described the factual matrix of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties in detail, therefore, there appears to be no necessity to again reproduce and repeat the same in this regular second appeal. However, the compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that a large chunk of the land, including the land in dispute, was owned by the Proprietors/Khewatdars/Mushtarka Malkan of village Kakroi, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Om Parkash son of Kidara (proforma respondent No.5-defendant No.1), earlier instituted the civil suit bearing No.188 of 1984 titled as Om Parkash Versus Dharambir, with respect of the entire land of the Proprietors/Mushtarka Malkan of the village. The suit was decreed on the basis of admission of Dharambir son of Sube by the trial Court by means of judgment and decree dated 07.03.1984(Ex.P-5).

2. In order to further conceal their collusion, the said judgment and decree was stated to have been secretly challenged in another civil suit bearing No.922/929 of 1985, purporting to have been filed by Raj Singh son of Jai Lal and others-respondent Nos.6 to 8-defendant Nos.3 to 5), which was dismissed by the civil court, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 31.07.1986(Ex.P-7).

3. Likewise, Om Parkash-defendant No.1 was stated to have suffered another consent decree dated 14.05.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.374 of 2003 in respect of suit land in favour of Dharam Pal son of Sube Singh-appellant defendant No.6 during the pendency of the present suit.

4. Faced with the situation, thereafter, Pale Ram, Ex-Sarpanch, Partap Singh son of Ram Sarup, Zile Singh son of Harnam and Ran Singh son of Ghasi Ram, contesting respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the present suit for a decree of declaration, in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, against the defendants, challenging the impugned collusive indicated civil court decrees, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

“a) That the suit No.188/84 titled as “Om Parkash Versus Dharambir” was filed by Om Parkash and that suit was decreed as Dharambir was colluded with Om Parkash.

b) The suit land was owned by proprietors but none of the proprietors was arrayed as party to the suit and thus, judgment and decree was obtained without notice to the proprietors.

c) The Gram Panchayat was also a co-sharer in the suit land, but Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as party. Further, the Ld. Court while passing the judgment and decree, did not appreciate the evidence.

d) Similarly, the judgment and decree in civil suit No.922/929 of 1985 are also illegal, null and void. The suit was filed by Raj Singh in representative capacity, under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, but no permission was granted by the Court. Even otherwise, no service was effected upon the proprietors.

e) In suit No.922/929 of 1985, defendants manipulated to forge the thumb impression/signatures of some of the plaintiffs in connivance with Raj Singh-plaintiff. The alleged challenge by Raj Singh etc. against judgment and decree in civil suit No.188 of 1984 was fake and superficial and in fact Raj Singh and others, wanted to help defendants No.1 & 2 in maintaining the judgment and decree dated 7.3.1984.

f) Om Parkash-defendant No.1 in the present suit has suffered a consent decree dated 14.05.2004 in respect of the suit land in favour of Dharampal son of Sube, during the pendency of the present suit. Dharampal-defendant No.6 obtained the judgment and decree without any notice and in the absence of plaintiffs. Plaintiff Om Parkash in suit No.188 of 1984 and Dharampal plaintiff in suit No.374 of 2003 had no antecedent title in the suit land. Therefore, the decrees were passed in their favour just to create rights for the first time. So, the decrees were compulsorily required registration.”

5. The case set