The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of heirs to inheritance, proper sanctioning of mutations, and the rights of class I heirs in property disputes.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. This regular second appeal filed by the appellants-defendants No.2, 7 and 9 arises from the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fazilka, modifying that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar dated 9.9.2013 vide which the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and possession qua plaintiffs No.1, was decreed.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The plaintiffs are the real daughters of Shri Puran and at the time of succession of Shri Puran after his death in the year 1972, only three heirs, i.e. defendants No.1 to 3 were shown as heirs of Shri Puran in mutation No.324. According to the plaintiffs, the said mutation was wrongly attested by the then Naib Tehsildar and Shri Ram Partap Lamberdar in connivance with defendants No.1 to 3. Defendants No.7 to 9 were purchasers of the land in dispute vide mutation Nos. 357 and 435 and that mutation No. 506 vide which defendant No.3 exchanged the land in excess of his share with defendant No.10 was null and void. Further, mutation No. 325 on the basis of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in excess of his share was null and void. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was contested by defendants No.2, 7 and 9 by filing separate written statements and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded by defendant No.2 that Shri Puran father of the answering defendant was in possession since long as tenant on batai 1/3rd share and defendant No.2 was cultivating the suit property at the spot and Form J was in the name of Shri Brij Lal and Surja Ram (defendant No.2) and the entire amount had been paid to the Government by Shri Brij Lal from his own pocket and that the plaintiffs had no right and authority to file the suit. Further, the plaintiffs and defendants No.4, 5 and 6 and Smt. Bali Devi had also given their consent at the time of entering and sanctioning of mutation No.324 regarding the suit property and later on Shri Banwari Lal son of Smt. Bali Devi, Shri Mani Ram husband of Smt. Savitri Devi, Shri Uda Ram husband of Smt. Kasturi Devi and defendant No.4 had given their written consent that they had no concern with the suit property or with the possession of the suit property. It was further pleaded that some part of the suit property was sold to defendants No.7 to 9 and some part of the suit property was exchanged with defendant No.3 which was legal, genuine and valid. Similar written statements were filed by defendants No.7 to 9. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. However, defendants No.1, 3 to 6 and 10 did not appear before the trial Court and were proceeded against exparte.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed true and material facts from the Court, if so, its effect? OPD

6. Relief.

4. The defendants examined plaintiff no.2 Supari Devi as DW1 who tendered into evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex.D1 by way of examination in chief, wherein, inter alia she deposed that in 1977 she had relinquished her share in the inheritance of her father, Sh. Puran and she never demanded any share from his estate. She further stated that the suit had been filed without her consent and by obtaining her thumb impression by cheating her and she does not want to pursue the suit.

5. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the pa