IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2323-1993 (O&M)

Reserved on: 03.02.2025 Pronounced on: 06.02.2025 RAMBAI AND ANOTHER . . . .APPELLANTS Vs.

SAROJ AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of present Regular Second Appeal, plaintiffs of the case have assailed the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1993 passed by the First Appellate Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby judgment and decree dated 10.03.1990 passed by the trial Court, decreeing the suit for declaration & permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute, was allowed, thus, reversing the judgment of the trial Court.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3.1 To understand the facts, it is necessary to mention the pedigree table between the parties, which is as under: -

3.2. As is evident from the abovesaid pedigree table, Pusha @ Posa had two sons namely, Kalu and Chandra. Both of them inherited total land measuring 162 kanals 14 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Tigrana, Tehsil and District Bhiwani in equal shares. There is no dispute regarding ½ share of land inherited by Kalu after his death.

3.3 The present dispute pertains to 1/2 share in the total land pertaining to Chandra, who had died in 1983, unmarried and issue-less. His brother Kalu had five children - two sons namely, Haria and Sube Singh; and three daughters namely, Ram Bai @ Om Bai, Bhanti @ Bhati and Smt. Javitri @ Savitri. Sube Singh had died in 1972 leaving behind his widow Saroj, daughter Krishana and son Satish.

3.4 The suit has been filed by Ram Bai @ Om Bai and Bhanti @ Bhati seeking declaration against their brother Haria - defendant; and successor- interest of the deceased brother Sube Singh – defendants N: 2 to 4. The plaintiffs have impleaded their sister Javitri @ Savitri as the proforma defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that Saroj, Krishana and Satish i.e. the successors-in-interest of Sube Singh had filed a suit bearing No.611 of 1982 against Chandra and Haria in Civil Court, Bhiwani alleging the family settlement of 1971, by virtue of which Chandra had relinquished his 1/4 share in total land in favour of Haria; and 1/4 share in favour of Plaintiffs’ of that suit i.e. Saroj, Krishna and Satish. Chandra contested that suit and denied any such family settlement, but unfortunately during the pendency of that suit, said Chandra died. After his death, Haria i.e. surviving defendant of that suit made a statement that compromise had been effected between the parties. Counsel appearing for Haria also made a statement that Haria along with Saroj, Krishna and Satish were the only legal representatives of Chandra. On the basis of that statement and the compromise pleaded, Haria was declared owner of 1/2 share of the land of Chandra; whereas Saroj, Krishna and Satish were declared to be owner of remaining ½ share of the land of Chandra by way of the judgment and decree dated 03.03.1984.

3.5 By way of the present suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the aforesaid decree dated 03.03.1984 to be null, illegal and void by claiming that they along with defendant No.4 Haria and proforma defendant-Javitri @ Savitri inherited the suit land i.e. the share of Chandra in the total land in equal share. It was also pleaded that in the previous litigation, Haria through his counsel had made a misleading statement that there was no other legal representatives of Chandra, despite the fact that plaintiffs of the present suit i.e. Ram Bai @ Om Bai, Bhanti @ Bhati; and Javitri @ Savitri, being the daughters of Kalu were also alive. They assailed the decree dated 03.03.1984 based upon compromise to be null, illegal and void and not binding on their rights. Apart from decree of declaration, they further prayed for consequential relief of