RSA No.3455 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3455 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 26 th APRIL, 2011 Shakuntala & others .... Appellants Versus Krishan & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs Shakuntala and Sawita daughters of Mohar Singh, who were successful in the trial court, but have been non-suited by the lower appellate court, have filed the instant second appeal. Mohar Singh-defendant No.3 (father of the plaintiffs) along with his mother Shoekauri-defendant No.6 and sisters Lali and Anguri Devi defendants No.4 and 5 suffered consent judgment and decree dated 25.07.1985 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. Krishan and his father Kidar. Kidar is brother of defendants No.3 to 5. Plaintiffs, who are daughters of defendant No.3 Mohar Singh, have challenged the said consent judgment and decree dated 25.07.1985 along with consequent mutation No.181 dated 09.02.1987 and also decree passed in Civil Suit No.884 of 1989 titled Mohar Singh versus Kirshan etc. decided on 11.09.1990 and also subsequent sale deed dated RSA No.3455 of 2009 -2- 28.06.2000 of part of the suit land executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No.7 and 8 during pendency of the instant suit. Defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit and claimed to be owners in possession of the suit land. It was also pleaded that Mohar Singh himself had filed suit to challenge the consent judgment and decree dated 25.07.1985, but the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.09.1990. Mohar Singh filed another suit, but the said suit was dismissed in default on 20.01.1996 under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Various other pleas were also raised. Defendants No.4 to 6 also contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. Defendants No.7 and 8 also contested the suit and claimed to be owners in possession of the land purchased by them vide sale deed dated 28.06.2000 from defendants No.1 and 2. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2007 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendants No.1 and 2 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that consent judgment and decree in question were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also being unregistered, the same are not legal and valid. The contention cannot be accepted. Plaintiffs' father Mohar Singh who RSA No.3455 of 2009 -3- suffered the consent judgment and decree in question is alive. During his life time, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the consent judgment and decree on the ground of fraud of misrepresentation or on the ground of non- registration thereof. Mohar Singh himself challenged the consent judgment and decree in question by filing suit No.884 of 1989 but the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.09.1990. Consequently even defendant No.3 Mohar Singh cannot file another suit to challenge the consent judgment and decree in question. Plaintiffs therefore have no locus standi to file the instant subsequent suit to challenge the consent judgment and decree in question. Mohar Singh also filed another suit which was dismissed in default on 20.01.1996 under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. In view thereof also, defendant No.3 cannot file another suit to challenge the consent judgment and decree in question. Consequently plaintiffs also cannot challenge the same. In addition to the aforesaid, even the trial court did not grant relief regarding the ownership and possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of defendant No.3 Mohar Singh. However, no such decree could be passed in favour of defendant No.3 as it was neither asked for by the plaintiff nor asked for by defendant No.3 himself whose defence was struck off in the trial court. Even otherwise, defendant No.3 himself could not challenge the consent judgment and decree in question having lost in two earlier suits i.e. one suit dismissed as withdrawn and other suit dismissed in default. Consequently no such relief as granted by the trial court could be granted to defendant No.3. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that suit land was ancestral property of defendant No.3 Mohar Singh. The contention RSA No.3455 of 2009 -4- does not help the appellants. Even if it was ancestral property, plaintiffs cannot challenge its alienation by defendant No.3 being his daughters. Defendant No.3 admittedly has no male issue. He, therefore, had absolute right to alienate the suit land. Plaintiffs thus have no locus standi to file suit to challenge the consent and judgment decree in question. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the lower appellate court nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. Consequently the said judgment does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is completely frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 26th April, 2011 'raj'