In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.3889 of 2005 ..... Date of decision:8.5.2008 Chhajju .....Appellant v. Mewa Singh and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) The plaintiff-appellant Chhajju filed a suit seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1985 in pursuance of which Dhara (since deceased)-defendant was declared to be owner in possession of 10 Kanals 11 Marlas of land out of land measuring 153 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Badhana, Tehsil and District Jind. The claim of the plaintiff was that he had never suffered such decree and in fact on the asking of Dhara he had gone to identify Dharmo-the sister of Dhara. For this purpose he went to the Court and on that pretext his signatures were taken on blank papers. The learned trial Court observed that the plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. He stated that there was no family settlement between him and Dhara and when he was called to Jind for the purpose of identifying Dharmo-the sister of Dhara, his signatures were R.S.A. No.3889/2005 [2] obtained on blank papers. He also appeared before the Magistrate and his signatures were taken. The learned trial Court, however, observed that except for the self-serving statement of the plaintiff, there was no other evidence to prove the alleged fraud. Shri R.S. Poras, Advocate was examined by the defendant, who stated that his father Shri Ram Singh, Advocate had represented Chhajju-plaintiff and Dhara in the civil suit-the judgment of which is impugned. Shri R.S. Poras, Advocate (DW-1) also identified the signatures of his father Shri Ram Singh, Advocate, who has since died, on the file of the civil suit titled Dhara v. Chhajju, decided on 29.3.1985. His father has since expired. It was also noticed that the plaintiff-Chhajju made his statement which was recorded in the Court on 22.3.1985 as Ex.D.1 and he admitted the claim of Dhara in the civil suit. During the pendency of the suit Dhara died. His Son Dilbag Singh, who appeared as a witness as DW-2 testified in examination-in-chief that suit land was given by the plaintiff-Chhajju to his father in a family settlement which was later incorporated into the decree. Both the Courts below have accepted the family settlement and decree that was suffered by the plaintiff-appellant. The contention of the plaintiff that the decree requires registration has also been negatived. It is not disputed by the leaned counsel for the appellant that Dhara was the plaintiff and the plaintiff was defendant in the suit. In the circumstances, the family settlement between the parties having been upheld which was incorporated in the decree, no interference is called for by this Court in regular second appeal. Besides, no question of law is found to be involved. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The fact that there is no merit in the appeal, the question of delay in filing the appeal is only R.S.A. No.3889/2005 [3] academic. May 8, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No