JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The defendants No.1 and 2 are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for declaration, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants are the 'defendants No.1 and 2'; and respondent No. 1 is the 'plaintiff'.

3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff Ram Narain son of Tale, resident of village Loharwara, had filed the present suit for declaration against the defendants with the averments that previously Tara Chand was the owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 10 Bigha 15 Biswa and 1/3rd share measuring 20 Bigha 9 Biswa, as detailed in para No.2 of the plaint.

4. The following pedigree table will be helpful, in order to understand the relationship between the parties: -

5. Tale, father of the plaintiff had expired on 18.4.1940 during the lifetime of his father Tara Chand, who had died in the year 1942. The mutation No.157 of inheritance of Tarachand was sanctioned on 16.9.1942. While sanctioning the mutation No.157, the name of defendant No.3 Ghogri was also entered alongwith the names of plaintiff and Tek Ram, father of defendants No.1 & 2 as an heir of 1/6th share; whereas she was not entitled to it because she had contracted karewa marriage with Laxman after the death of her previous husband Tale. The defendant No. 3 Ghogri has been living with Laxman as his wife and she had also given birth to Ram Piari, Shanti and Attar Singh. During the consolidation proceedings, the entire land of Tale's family was consolidated and now it was measuring 170 kanals 18 marlas comprised in Khewat No.114 as per jamabandi for the year 1982-83. After the death of Smt. Rajan, 1/6th share was mutated vide mutation No.532 in favour of her heirs and in that mutation also the name of defendant No.3 Ghogri was added with that of the plaintiff and Tek Ram. Due to these wrong entries in mutation Nos.157 and 532, wherein she/Ghogri has been shown to be owner of 1/15 share, the defendants No.1 and 2 taking advantage of this wrong entry filed a collusive suit against Ghogri which was decided in their favour on 21.11.1986 by which the defendant No.3 Ghogri transferred her 1/15th share in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Although she has ceased to have any land after she had contracted karewa marriage with Laxman. The defendants No. 1 & 2 have started to assert their title on the basis of impugned judgment and decree of which the defendants were asked number of times by the plaintiff to get corrected the wrong entries and to get cancelled the impugned judgement and decree but the defendant did not agree, hence, the necessity arose to file the present suit, for declaration against the defendants.

6. Upon notice, the defendants No. 1 and 2 who appeared through counsel and resisted the suit by filing written statement. Besides formal objections, it was denied that karewa marriage was solemnized between defendant No.3 and Laxman after the death of previous husband of defendant No.3. It was admitted that Tale had expired during lifetime of Tara Chand. It was also pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff was time barred, and the plaintiff was estopped to file the suit by his own act and conduct.

7. Plaintiff filed replication re-asserting the averments made in the plaint and denying those made in the written statement.

8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

'1. Whether Shri Tale Ram died in the year 1942 and Smt. Ghogri contracted karewa marriage with Laxman after the death of Tale Ram?OPP

2. If issue No.1 proved, whether the mutation No.157 dated 16.9.42 in favour of Smt. Ghogri is illegal, null and void against law and facts and liable to be set aside?OPP

3. If issue No.1 proved, whether mutation No.532 dated 8.8.1968 is also illegal, null and void, agains