JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Introductory Facts: The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

2. The suit for possession based on inheritance, relating to the property in dispute, was instituted by the plaintiff – Smt. Gurcharan Kaur (now represented through her legal representatives). The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1992, and the appeal filed by the defendant–appellant Hardayal Singh (now represented through his legal representatives) was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 27.07.1996.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. The trial Court record has been requisitioned and perused.

4.1 Plaintiff’s Case: The subject matter of dispute is land measuring 185 kanals 9 marlas, situated in village Shahnal, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, as detailed in head-note of the plaint. The land was originally owned by Ishar Singh son of Assa Singh, who was married to Smt. Bhagwan Kaur. The plaintiff, i.e. Gurcharan Kaur is the admitted daughter of Ishar Singh and Smt. Bhagwan Kaur and, according to her, she is the sole issue from the said wedlock.

4.2 Ishar Singh had a brother, namely Gulab Singh, who was married to Smt. Bhagwant Kaur, from whom a son, Gamdur Singh, was born. Gulab Singh expired in the year 1944. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Gulab Singh, his widow Smt. Bhagwant Kaur neither contracted any marriage nor performed any karewa marriage with Ishar Singh. Despite this, she gave birth to a son in the year 1947, namely Hardayal Singh - defendant No.1. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Ishar Singh was not the biological father of defendant No.1 and that merely to preserve the dignity and honour of the family, Ishar Singh allowed his name to be recorded as the father of the defendant, though no marital or legal relationship existed between him and Smt. Bhagwant Kaur.

4.3 Ishar Singh expired on 10.11.1955, leaving behind various parcels of land situated in village Shahnal. After his death, Mutation of Inheritance No.183 was sanctioned on 07.07.1960 exclusively in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleges that the said mutation was got sanctioned by the defendant fraudulently and in connivance with the revenue staff, without any notice, knowledge or consent of either Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, the widow of Ishar Singh, or the plaintiff. The mutation is, therefore, pleaded to be null, illegal, void and liable to be set aside.

4.4 During consolidation proceedings, the land so inherited illegally by the defendant was separated from other co-sharers, including Ajmer Singh and others, wherein the defendant claimed 1/9th share out of 2383 bigha 10 biswa, comprised in khewat No.1, khatauni Nos.1 to 26, as per the jamabandi for the year 1955–56. After consolidation, land measuring 810 kanal 17 marla was allotted to defendant No.1, comprised in khewat No.1, khatauni No.1, total kittas 115, as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1960–61, after excluding the land sold by the defendant prior to consolidation. Over a period of time, defendant No.1 alienated substantial portions of the land. As per the jamabandi for the year 1983–84, he is now left with only the suit land measuring 185 kanal 9 marla, having already disposed of the remaining land.

4.5 The further case of the plaintiff is that upon the death of Ishar Singh, his entire estate legally devolved upon his widow, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, she being his sole legal heir. However, in order to avoid family discord and litigation, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur admitted defendant No.1 as entitled to ½ share in the land. The plaintiff’s mother and defendant No.1 lived together and jointly enjoyed the income and profits from the land up to the years 1981–82. Taking undue advantage of the trust reposed in him, defendant No.1 sold almost the entire land, except the p