Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.: - The defendant/appellant has challenged the judgment dated 25.08.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad upholding the judgment dated 25.11.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad.

2. The plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as the plaintiff) had filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 66 kanal 1 marla situated in Mauja Firojpur Kalan, Tehsil Balabgarh District Faridabad as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint claiming himself to be the brother of defendant No.2/ appellant (herein referred as defendant No.,2). Defendant No,.1 was their father. He being the Karta of the joint Hindu family had purchased the suit property in his name vide three registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 11687 and 11685 both dated 18.1.1984 and sale deed No.17573 dated 10.2.1984. Property has been earlier leased out by the previous owner in favour of defendant No.2 vide two different deeds Nos. 11683 and 11684 both dated 18.1.1984. The defendant No.2 had transferred the leased out rights of the said property in favour of plaintiff vide document No.2396 dated 24.6.2005. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties and family settlement took place between them whereby defendant No.1 i.e. the father of the plaintiff relinquished all his ownership rights qua the property in favour of the plaintiff. Both the defendants i.e. the appellant and his father had acknowledged the plaintiff to be the absolute owner in possession of the suit property from the time of the agreement. They had also assured that records regarding the suit property would be got corrected in his favour. But that could not be done, therefore, the suit had to be preferred by Niren Mohan Nagpal plaintiff on 10.09.2005.

3. Defendant No.2 and his father defendant No.1 contested the suit denying family settlement dated 20.6.2005 on the ground of being sham, bogus and fraudulent document. It was also alleged that the said document was never acted upon and same being unregistered is not binding on the defendants. It was further clarified that lease in favour of the plaintiff was an independent transaction which does not strengthen his claim. Alleged family settlement is not a valid document for relinquishment of ownership rights by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants do not recognize their rights on the basis of alleged family settlement.

4. No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Additional Civil Judge, Faridabad on 24.10.2007.

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of agricultural land as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved then whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for want of proper court fee? OPD

4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Relief.

5. Both the parties led evidence. Trial court after scrutiny of evidence while acknowledging the settlement dated 20.06.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal filed by defendant No.1 was also dismissed.

6. It would be necessary to mention here that defendant No.1 (Inder Mohan Nagpal) had died during the pendency of suit and he did not file any appeal.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that the suit property was owned by joint Hindu family comprised of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.1 (deceased) being the Karta of the family had purchased or taken property on lease in his name. Family settlement dated 20.06.2005 i.e. the memo of partition Ex.P.5 came into existence which reveals that the suit property was being owned by defendant No.1 (deceased) being Karta of the Hindu undivided family and they had also entered into fami