1 to 4 got mutation entered of above said sale deed, mutation no. 9607 dated 25.7.2000 and mutation no. 4736 dated 25.7.2000. As per mutation no. 9607 dated 25.7.2000 the accused no 5 to 10 had been shown owner in possession of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/2 (1-7), situated at Hisar, whereas on the spot the accused no. 5 to 10 were not in possession of the said land. Whereas as per sale deed no. 4963 dated 28.11.1985 Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/2 (1-7) situated at Hisar was not sold, beside this as per mutation no. 4736 dated 5.7.2000, it has been shown as owner of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/1/1 (0-3) and killa No. 26/1(0-9) situated at Hisar. Whereas as per sale deed no. 4963 dated 28.11.1985 only the area of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 26 min (0-7) was sold and killa no 9/1/1 (0-3) of Rectangle was not sold. Thus accused no. 1 to 4 with the collusion of accused no 5 to 10 got prepared intentionally wrong mutation so that accused no. 5 to 10 may cause loss to the sons of complaint namely Anil, Pardeep sons of Ami Chand, Amar Singh son of Nanak Ram Vikash son of Madan Lal, who are in possession of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/2 (1-7), situated at Hisar and may cause damage to the persons in possession namely Mulakh Raj son of Aci Lal in Rectangle No. 109/9/1(0-3) and 26/1 (09) situated at Hisar. Copy of mutation no. 4736 and 9607 are hereby attached. These both mutations are wrong and forged and the accused are using the same.
