IMPORTANT POINT
.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

This revision petition has arisen from the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Safidon, vide which application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint filed by defendants No.1, 4 to 6 was dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 8 kanals, 10 marlas being 1/6th share each out of total land measuring 25 kanals, 10 marlas as shown in the plaint in the revenue estate of Safidon, District Jind vide jamabandi for the year 2009-10 and as per sale deed dated 25.09.1957 and mutation No.1056. Plaintiffs and defendants are claimed to be in joint possession of the land measuring 25 kanals, 10 marlas being joint Hindu family property being the coparcener of the family of Rattan Chand son of Kali Ram. Declaration has also been sought in respect of sale deed dated 28.04.2000 in the name of defendant No.4 on the basis of registered sale deed dated 25.09.1957 and mutation No.1056 to be part of the share of defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants No.2, 3, 7 and 8 with consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the joint possession in the suit property and changing the nature of the suit land forcibly and also restraining them from raising any kind of construction in the suit property and further for restraining them from alienating the suit property or creating any encumbrance over it.

3. Plaintiffs claimed their right being of coparceners/members of joint Hindu family property as shown in the plaint. They claimed that the property was purchased from the joint funds of Kali Ram in favour of his grand-son defendant No.1/Brijeshwar Swaroop. Plaintiffs claimed their birth right being male member of the 4th generation of Kali Ram. Kali Ram by constituting the joint Hindu family, purchased various properties from nucleus funds of the joint family. He gave managerial power to his son Vijay Ram due to his old age. Kali Ram had purchased the suit land along with other properties as Karta through his son Vijay Ram in the name of all his sons from 1956 to 1960. Vijay Ram got registered all the sale deeds in his name and other bothers namely Duni Chand, Tarlok Chand, Sheetal Parkash and defendant No.1 got the property in his name in place of his father Rattan Chand.

4. Rattan Chand was a Government servant and he died on 19.07.1983. Duni Chand retired as Dy-Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana and died on 09.01.2005. Vijay Ram was looking after the agricultural properties and other affairs of the joint family being Karta and was also Lambardar of the village. He died on 12.04.1991. Tarlok Chand and Sheetal Parkash are still alive. Tarlok Chand retired as Engineer-in-Chief from State of Haryana, whereas Sheetal Parkash was studying in matric at the time of purchase of the property in the year 1956. Rattan Chand after his death on 19.07.1983 left behind three sons i.e. defendants No.1 to 3 and five daughters namely Kusum Lata, Saroj, Sharda, Sarla Bala and Indu. All the daughters are married. Plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No.3/Anil Kumar Aggarwal, who are born on 15.07.1987 and 24.01.1990 respectively. Plaintiffs have also pleaded the details of properties which were purchased from the joint funds from 1956 to 1960. The details have been given in para No.7 of the plaint.

5. Plaintiffs have also given cause of action for filing the present suit in para Nos.14 and 15 of the plaint, which are reproduced hereasunder for ready reference:-

"14. That since defendant No.1 has openly started claiming himself to be the sole owner of the property, as the prices of the land have increased manifold and he has become dishonest, which compelled defendant No.3 to file a suit and the suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on technical reasons. Though a litigation between defendants No.1 a