The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically the order of succession among heirs in Class I and Class II, and the legal authority to inherit property based on the specific entries in the Schedule.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Ranjan, J. (Oral) - I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge at Rewari in Case no.CA/268/2015 by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed and the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kosli, dated 01.05.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.RT-4 of 2012 was affirmed. By the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit for grant of following reliefs:-

I. A decree of declaration against defendants to the effect that plaintiff is joint owner in possession of property mentioned in para 3 of the plaint (for short suit property) to the extent of l/4th share and the impugned mutation No. 334 dated 13.03.1969 (mutation of inheritance of Sh.Chandagi Ram), mutation No. 434 (Mutation of inheritance of Jugti alias Teja), mutation No. 447 (mutation of inheritance of Shish Ram) and mutation No. 568 (in view of decree of Civil Court dated01.06.1987) be set aside as same are not null, void and illegal to the extent of l/4th share of plaintiff and not binding on his rights.

II. A decree of permanent injunction against the contesting defendants is also sought to the effect that they be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession and use of plaintiff and from dispossessing him from suit property or from alienating or creating any charge or interest over this property in any manner.

III. A decree of mandatory injunction is also sought if during pendency of the suit, defendants succeed in their illegal act.

2. According to the plaintiff/appellant, one Natia alias Nanhar had five sons-Har Lal, Chandgi, Jubti alias Teja, Shish Ram and Jai Lai. The plaintiff is son of Jai Lal. The contesting defendants-respondents are the daughter and sons of Jubti and Sish Ram. The dispute is with respect to the share of Chandgi son of Nathia alias Nanhar, who admittedly died issueless on 13.03.1969. The claim of the plaintiff/appellant-Hawa Singh is that he was in joint cultivating possession with Chandgi with respect to his share of lands and as such after his death he was entitled for the 1/4 share which is share of Chandgi out of the suit property. He claimed that the mutation order dated 13.03.1969 opening mutation no.434 in favour of Jugti alias Teja, mutation No.417 with respect to inheritance of Sish Ram and Mutation No.568, are void, illegal and have been obtained fraudulently and, thus, they are required to be set aside to the extent of l/4th share of the plaintiff as mentioned above. The plaintiff/appellant also sought that the defendants may be restrained from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from dispossessing him from the suit property or alienating or incumbering in any manner to the extent of l/4th share of the plaintiff/appellant.

3. The defendant no. 1, 6 and 7 appeared and filed their jointwritten statement taking stand that the father of plaintiff has already died way back in 1956, i.e. even prior to the death of Chandgi and as such he did not have any right to get a share in the property. Accordingly, the order of mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in accordance with law and does not require any interference.

4. Upon consideration of rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration against the defendants as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants as prayed for?OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

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

6. Whether the suit of plaintiff is time barred?OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of ac