NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession, and declaration, with consequential relief of injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the instant Suit claiming that she is daughter of Ram Gopal. Performa defendant No. 8 is the 2nd daughter of Ram Gopal. Defendant No.1 is the grandfather of the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 to 7 are persons who have purchased the suit land from defendant no.1. It was pleaded that father of the plaintiff was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 35K- 9M. Father of the plaintiff had died on 08.07.1983. After his death, his wife, 2 daughters including the plaintiff and performa defendant No. 8 became the class -1 heirs of the suit property. It was alleged that defendant No.1 had fraudulently got the mutation No. 1192 dated 25.08.1985 sanctioned in his name. Thereafter, based on the said fraudulent mutation, defendant No.1 had further sold the land to defendants No.2 to 7 through various Sale Deeds/Lease Deeds. It was contended that the Sale Deeds/Lease Deeds are not binding on the rights and interest of the plaintiff and performa defendant No.8 and therefore are liable to be set aside. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 03.01.2004.

Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 25.03.2011 in the following manner: -

“30. As per my findings on various issues above, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove her case through cogent and convincing evidence, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance ”

The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2024. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it is not disputed fact on record that the plaintiff and performa defendant No. 8 are the daughters of Ram Gopal. Defendant No.1 is the grandfather of the plaintiff and performa defendant No.8. It is submitted that at the time of death of Ram Gopal on 08.07.1983, plaintiff was only 4 years old and performa defendant No. 8 was only about 3 years old. Their mother was only about 30/32 years old. Ram Gopal had been living separately from his father as he had strained relations with his father i.e. defendant No.1. However, defendant No.1, being very clever person, had fraudulently and suppressingly got mutation of inheritance No. 1192 dated 25.08.1985 sanctioned in his name. It is submitted that he had got done the above fraudulent act on the basis of some oral “Will” which is said to be without any date. Even no notice as required was given to the appellant, mother of the appellant, or even performa defendant No.8. Nor any opportunity of hearing was granted before sanctioning of Mutation on the basis of alleged oral Will in favour of defendant No.1. It is contended that Ram Gopal, father of the plaintiff, had never executed any Will of his property nor any alleged Will was produced at the time of sanctioning of the said Mutation. It is further submitted that even defendant No.1 had not even disclosed the fact of execution of alleged Will nor was such a fact ever disclosed by Ram Gopal. It is submitted that appellant and performa defendant No.8 being class-1 heirs have lawful right over the estate of Ram Gopal. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff could not have been dismissed.

It is further submitted that after attaining majority in 1998, plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1, within a short span h