The importance of proving adoption and the existence of a Will in property disputes, and the application of the Limitation Act in determining the timeliness of suits.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Harminder Singh Madaan, J. - By this order, I shall dispose of RSA-2969-2013(O&M) and SAO-56-2002(O&M) filed on behalf of appellant-Mam Raj.

RSA-2969-2013 (O&M)

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Mam Raj claiming himself to be adopted son of Sh. Kirpal Singh, a resident of village Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal had brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendants i.e. Smt. Sabiri Devi-widow of Sh. Kirpal Singh, Smt. Saroj-widow of Sh. Mam Chand, Baby Husan-minor daughter of Sh. Mam Chand, Sh. Mahinder Singh son of Sh. Panna Singh as well as State of Haryana through Collector, Karnal.

3. In that suit, the plaintiff had challenged the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1989 passed by the then Sub-Judge, Karnal in Civil Suit titled "Mam Chand v. Smt. Satbiri" with regard to land measuring 29 kanals 7 marlas being 1/9th share of the total land measuring 265 kanals situated at village Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) as well as sale deed No. 1142 dated 15.1.2001 executed by Smt. Saroj-defendant No. 2 in favour of Sh. Mahinder Singh-defendant No. 4 with regard to the land measuring 6 marlas out of the suit land, alleging that the same were result of fraud, misrepresentation and not binding upon rights of the plaintiff. By way of praying for grant of permanent injunction, the plaintiff craved for issuance of a restraint order against defendant No. 4 Sh. Mahinder Singh from alienating/transferring the suit land or part thereof in favour of defendant No. 5.

4. As per the version of the plaintiff S/Sh. Kirpal Singh, Raghbir Singh and Daya Ram sons of Sh. Kundan Singh were owners in joint possession of the suit land in equal shares; that Sh. Raghbir Singh had died on 17.6.1980 without leaving any widow or issue, therefore, his share was inherited by his two brothers Sh. Kirpal Singh and Sh. Daya Ram and sister Smt. Dakho Devi, in that way Kirpal Singh and Daya Ram became co-sharers to the extent of 4/9 share, whereas Smt. Dakho Devi became co-sharer to the extent of 1/9th share; that Kirpal Singh also died on 8.4.1981 leaving behind Smt. Sabiri Devi-defendant No. 1 as his widow, Ram Kali and Roshni Devi as daughters, Krishni daughter of Kela Devi, Daler Singh, Janak Singh, Jasmer Singh, Tarsem Singh, Desraj and Joginder Singh sons of Kela Devi, a pre-deceased daughter of Kirpal Singh; that under the Hindu Succession Act, the defendant No. 1 and the persons mentioned above would have been inherited the estate of Kirpal Singh, however Kripal Singh had executed a valid Will dated 7.4.81 bequeathing his entire share in the abovesaid land besides all his moveable and immovable properties in favour of the plaintiff being his adopted son; that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 117 kanals 16 marlas being 4/9 share in the suit land on the basis of Will dated 7.4.1981 and during the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff had also filed an application restraining the defendants in that suit including the present defendant No. 1 from alienating/transferring any portion of the suit property; that counsel for defendant No. 1 and other defendants, namely, Sh. A.K. Sawhney, Advocate had made a statement before the Court on 13.11.1986 that the defendants would not alienate the land till the final decision of the suit, however the defendant No. 1 in utter violation of the undertaking given in the Court transferred the land measuring 29 kanals 7 marlas being 1/9th share of the suit land in favour of Mam Chand, now deceased husband of defendant No. 2 and father of defendant No. 3 by way of the impugned decree; that mutation No. 1398 was also sanctioned by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nilokheri on the basis of said decree; that on death of Sh. Mam Chand, his estate was inherited by defendants No. 2 and 3 vide mutation No. 1628 sanctioned on 29.5.1994; that the suit bear