IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 246 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.4.2010 Jagbir Singh and others. ....... Appellants. Versus Sube Singh and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellants. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal. They and the defendants- respondents are related to each other. In their suit for declaration with permanent injunction, they had laid a challenge to the decree dated 23.8.1984 and consequent mutation no.867 and pleaded that the same was illegal, null & void, without jurisdiction and not binding on their rights. The decree was said to be a result of fraud. It was further pleaded that defendant no.5 had wrongly sold the suit land in favour of defendant nos. 6 to 8 vide registered sale deed dated 12.6.1997 which was also alleged to be illegal, and a result of fraud. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by R.S.A.No.246 of 2009 -2- .... filing three separate sets of written statements – one on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3, the second on behalf of defendant no.5 and the third on behalf of defendant nos. 6 to 8. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 took certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit and locus standi of the plaintiffs. On merits, they denied the averments of the plaintiffs for want of knowledge. Defendant no.5 had pleaded that since he had already executed sale deed dated 12.6.1997, the suit against him had become infructuous. It was pleaded that he had become owner of 20 kanals 11 marlas out of the agircultural land measuring 52 kanals 7 marlas on the basis of family settlement which was arrived at in civil suit no.515 of 1984 in which decree dated 23.8.1984 was passed. It was further pleaded that on an earlier point of time, the plaintiffs had also filed a suit which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 21.10.1986 and, therefore, the plea which is now being raised questioning the decree dated 23.8.1984 is barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that one Jeet Singh, who is plaintiff no.6 in the array of parties, again had filed suit challenging the validity of the decree dated 23.8.1984 but the same was dismissed in default on 31.5.1991. The fraud, as alleged, was denied. The vendees, i.e., defendant nos. 6 to 8, had pleaded in their written statement that they were bona fide purchases and, thus, they defended the sale in their favour. Both the Courts below concluded that the suit was barred by time and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish fraud as alleged by them R.S.A.No.246 of 2009 -3- .... and dismissed the suit and the appeal. This has resulted in the filing of the instant appeal in which it has been contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside. I have considered the aforesaid contention and have perused the impugned judgments. The plaintiffs had pleaded that Rati Ram, who had suffered the decree dated 23.8.1984, in favour of defendant no.5, was not in a fit state of mind. They also pleaded fraud, but if the evidence on record is to be seen, they failed to establish that Rati Ram was not in a fit state of mind. No medical evidence was produced. The fraud which was alleged by pleading that Rati Ram never appended his signatures to the written statement on the basis of which decree dated 23.8.1984 was passed, was not established. No handwriting expert was examined nor any material was shown from where it could be inferred that the decree was not suffered voluntarily by Rati Ram. The evidence on record also reveals that on an earlier occasion, a suit was filed challenging the same very decree dated 23.8.1984, but that suit was withdrawn. On 21.10.1986. Subsequently, another plaintiff, namely, Jeet Singh had filed a suit challenging the validity of the same very decree which was dismissed in default on 31.5.1991. In such an eventuality, it cannot be accepted that the plaintiffs were not in the knowledge of the decree as has been pleaded by them in oder to evade the effect of law of limitation. R.S.A.No.246 of 2009 -4- .... Thus, looking from both angles, there is no merit in the present appeal which is dismissed. April 28,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge