RSA No.1019 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1019 of 2002(O & M) Date of Decision:26.05.2009 Darshan Kaur & Ors. ....appellants Versus Munshi Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.S.S.Bhinder,Advocate for the appellants Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995 passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Dabwali in Civil Suit No.761 of 20.07.1995 titled as “Munshi Singh vs. Smt.Santo @ Basant Kaur & Ors.” was decreed. During the pendency of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants vide Civil Miscellaneous application No.11409-C of 2005 placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 22.03.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)Dabwali in Civil Suit No.452 of 1999/2003 titled as “Basant Kaur vs. Munshi singh & Ors.”, whereby the decree dated 12.09.1995 passed by the same court in Civil Suit No.761 of 1995 was set aside. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.)Mandi Dabwali, in Civil Suit No.452 of 1999/2003 learned RSA No.1019 of 2002 2 counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned judgment and decrees were passed against the appellants only on the basis of judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.761 of 1995 which has been set aside by the same court vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 and therefore the impugned judgment and decrees are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is liable to be dismissed and thus the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: 1. Whether the impugned decree which is based on decree dated 12.09.1995 can be sustained in the eyes of law when the previous decree dated 12.09.1995 stands set aside.” Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents has admitted that the respondents have not challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Mandi Dabwali, in Civil Suit No.452 of 1999/2003. He has also not disputed that the impugned judgment and decree was passed against the appellants only on the basis of judgment and decree dated 12.09.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.761 of 20.07.1995 and vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 passed by Civil Judge(Jr. Divn.), Mandi Dabwali, in Civil Suit No.452 of 1999/2003 the aforesaid decree dated 12.09.1995 has been set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The fact that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed solely on the basis of a previous decree dated 12.09.1995, is not disputed. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the aforesaid decree dated 12.09.1995 has been set aside vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 in Civil Suit No.452 of 1999/2003. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 has become final between the parties. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual position, the question RSA No.1019 of 2002 3 raised by the appellants is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. Thus the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondents is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.05.2009 neenu