JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants legal representatives of original defendant No.1 Krishan Chand, against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.1993 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the learned First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1989 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, Sonepat, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Smt. Bharto for declaration, thereby declaring the decree dated 02.01.1981 in Civil Suit No. 691/1980 as well as the subsequent sale deed dated 11.01.1988 as illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

Brief Facts

2. The case of the plaintiff, as set up in the plaint and amended plaint, is that defendant No.2 Udmi was the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 20 Kanals 10 Marlas, being ½ share in Khewat No. 735/697, Khatoni No. 1399/1333, Rect. & Killa No. 105, 17/2, 18, 22, 23, 1-0,8-2, 3-8, 8-0, situated in the revenue estate of village Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. The remaining ¼ share of land measuring 76 Kanals 9 marlas was also owned and possessed by defendant No.2. The land is ancestral and had devolved upon defendant No.2 from his father, and the plaintiff is the real daughter and natural legal heir of defendant No.2, thereby entitled to inherit his estate under the Hindu succession Act.

3. It is pleaded that defendant No.1 Krishan Chand is the nephew of defendant No.2. Taking undue advantage of the old age and illiteracy of defendant No.2, a collusive suit was instituted by defendant No.1, in which defendant No.2 appeared and suffered a decree dated 02.01.1981 in Civil Suit No. 691/1980, whereby the suit land was transferred in favour of defendant No.1. It is averred that no summons or notice of the said proceedings were issued to defendant No.2 and the decree was obtained fraudulently, behind the back of the plaintiff who was not made a party thereto. The said decree is pleaded to be illegal, void, inoperative, collusive and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.

4. During pendency of the present suit, defendant No.1 again, in collusion with defendant No.2, suffered another decree dated 16.12.1987, by which the land was ostensibly transferred back to defendant No.2. It is asserted that the said decree was also collusive and intended to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No.2, on the basis of the decree dated 16.12.1987, executed a sale deed dated 11.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.1 during the pendency of the present suit. The plaintiff amended the plaint to incorporate challenge to the subsequent decree and sale deed, pleading that both these transactions were executed with the sole intention to deprive her of her lawful rights in the ancestral property.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is in joint possession of the suit land along with the defendants and that all the three transactions i.e. decree dated 02.01.1981, decree dated 16.12.1987 and sale deed dated 11.01.1988, being collusive, fictitious, fraudulent, without consideration and carried out pendente lite, are illegal and void ab initio and not binding upon her rights. On acquiring knowledge, she requested defendants several times to cancel the fraudulent decree and sale deed and get the land mutated in her favour according to her lawful share, but they refused.

6. On these pleadings, the present suit was filed seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 02.01.1981 in Civil Suit No. 691/1980, the subsequent decree dated 16.12.1987 and the sale deed dated 11.01.1988 are illegal, void, fictitious, collusive and not binding upon the plaintiff’s rights, along with a further relief of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the suit land in any manner.

7. The defendants contested the suit and denied all allegations of fraud and collusion. They pleaded that the decree dated 02.01.1981 was perfectly legal