RSA No.1301 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1301 of 2007 Date of decision: 08.02.2011 Gurcharan Singh .....Appellant Versus Balkar Singh etc. .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Vivek Singla,Advocate for the respondent **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Gurcharan Singh filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit property and the judgment and decree dated 1.4.1994 passed in Civil suit No. 180 of 1994 were liable to be set aside as they were the result of fraud and impersonation. Plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 4 were sons of defendant No.1. A family settlement was arrived at between the parties and the said property had come to the share of the plaintiff. The possession of the suit property was also handed over to the plaintiff. Defendants in collusion with each other had played fraud on the plaintiff and had got the impugned decree. Defendants in their written statement averred that the suit property was self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and he has RSA No.1301 of 2007 2 effected a partition qua the said property. Plaintiff was given the portion EFGH during partition. Defendant no.2 was given property marked ABCD consisting of three shops with first floor. Defendant no.3 was given portion marked CDEF and sons of Jagjit Singh were given portion marked GHIJ. A Civil Court decree was passed in terms of the family settlement between the parties. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration that he is owner in possession of the property as shown in the site plan?OPP 2.Whether the civil court decree passed in Civil Suit No.180 of 1994, decided on 1.4.94 is illegal, null and void and if so its effect?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP 4.Whether the suit is barred under Section 11 CPC?OPD 5.Whether the suit is not maintainable as plaintiff is out of possession?OPD 6.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 7.Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 8.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous and as such liable to be dismissed with special costs, if so how much?OPD 9.Relief” RSA No.1301 of 2007 3 Vide judgment and decree dated 26.5.2003, the trial court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. A decree for declaration was passed to the effect that the plaintiff was owner of property described as EFGHIJ which had come to him in terms of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 180 of 1994 dated 1.4.1994. The judgment and decree dated 1.4.1994 were upheld. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2007. Hence,the present appeal filed by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.4.1994 were a result of fraud. However, plaintiff had failed to establish the said plea. Plaintiff was arrayed as plaintiff No.2 in Civil Suit no. 180 of 1994. Plaintiff had not specifically denied his signatures on the plaint as well as the power of attorney executed by him in favour of his counsel in the said suit. Plaintiff failed to examine any expert to substantiate his plea that he was not a party to the earlier litigation. Plaintiff was required to establish his plea of fraud but he has failed to do so. No substantial question of law arises in this Regular Second Appeal which would warrant interference by his Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE February 08, 2011 arya RSA No.1301 of 2007 4