RSA No. 2265 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM No. 6772-C of 2009 and
RSA No. 2265 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 24, 2009
Harbans Singh and another ...... Appellants
Versus
Jaswant Singh and another ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J.
CM No. 6772-C of 2009
This application has been filed by the applicants Under Order
22 Rule 3 read with Section 151CPC and Rule 3,Chapter 1-C,Volume V of
the High Court Rules and Orders seeking permission to file the instant
appeal on behalf of deceased Gurbachan Kaur-plalintiff, their mother. The
same is allowed.
RSA No. 2265 of 2009
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the
courts below dismissing the suit of plaintiff Gurbachan Kaur (since
RSA No. 2265 of 2009 2
deceased) challenging the decree suffered by her. The following questions
have been proposed:-
a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, the respondent having failed to prove any
family settlement or any pre-existing right in the property
in dispute the impugned decree dated 6.5.1994,being
illegal, fraudulent and unregistered can be said to have
conveyed any title in favour of the respondent?
b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, Gurbachan Kaur/plaintiff having led
affirmative evidence showing that she had been
defrauded by the respondent the suit filed by the plaintiff
could be dismissed?
c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case the suit could be said to be barred by
limitation?
It would be seen that all the questions are interrelated. Both
the courts on appreciation of evidence have found that the plaintiff was not
able to establish her plea of fraud since the handwriting expert as well as the
counsel who appeared on her behalf were produced, apart from other
evidence. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that these
findings are either based on no evidence or are based on such a misreading
of evidence so as to render them perverse. As regards the plea of lack of
pre-existing right learned lower Appellate Court has rightly held that this
plea was not available to the mother since she herself suffered the decree
and the only ground on which she could challenge the same was the ground
RSA No. 2265 of 2009 3
of fraud. In view of what I have held above the question No. ( c ) pales
into insignificance.
Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil
Misc. Applications are disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
July 24, 2009
sunita