JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

RS A-485-2015 (O& M)

The plaintiff No.2 is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and possession, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

RS A-3922-2015 (O& M)

The plaintiffs No.1 and 3 are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and possession, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. Both the above said appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as both Second Appeals arise out of common judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed by ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula whereby suit of the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed; and judgment dated 07.10.2014 passed by Addl. District Judge, Panchkula whereby Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed. Parties, and facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from RSA-485-2015 titled as “Kamlesh Devi vs. Rishi Pal and others.”

3. It was the pleaded case of the appellants in the plaint that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 are real sisters and are the daughters of defendant No.4-Basant Singh, who is an old man and does not keep good health. Basant Singh was holding his share in the ancestral property, and was therefore, owner in possession of the suit land. However, vide the Consent Decree dated 18.03.1991 passed in Civil Suit No. 44 of 1991 titled as Rishi Pal and others vs. Basant Singh, share of Basant Singh in ancestral property was transferred in the names of defendants No. 1 to 3. Consequentially mutation No. 1753 dated 06.07.1991 came to be sanctioned in favour of defendants No.1 to 3. It was alleged that the said Decree dated 18.03.1991 was a collusive and illegal decree and was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, present suit for declaration and possession was filed on 23.12.2011.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2011. The Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 07.10.2014. Hence, the present second appeals by the plaintiffs.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the defendants No.1 to 3 played a fraud upon the defendant No.4 and the plaintiffs, and obtained the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1991, without disclosing the true facts to the defendant No.4 and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submit that the defendants No.1 to 3 got the mutation of the land in question entered and attested in their names without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, thus, the aforesaid judgment and decree and mutation do not confer any title in favour of the defendants No.1 to 3.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with the Revenue officials got the revenue entries changed arbitrarily and secretly. Accordingly, a declaration was sought by the plaintiffs on the grounds that: (a) defendant No.4 was stranger to defendants No. 1 to 3 who had no right to inherit the property of defendant No.4; (b) and, therefore, there could not have been any family settlement between defendants No. 1 to 4 inter se ignoring the legal rights of the plaintiffs; (c) that the plaintiffs being real daughters of defendant No.4 could not have been ignored in the family settlement; and (d) defendants No. 1 to3 had played fraud upon defendant No.4.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that Basant Singh and the contesting defendants No. 1 to 3 had joined hands in order to deprive the plaintiffs of their rights to the suit property which