IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2491 of 2007 Date of decision: 21st October, 2008 Jasmail Singh … Appellant Versus Surjit Ram and others … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the Appellant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Ram Kaur had a sister named Partap Kaur. Dasonda Singh was brother of Ram Kaur. Ram Kaur, admittedly was issueless. Plaintiff is son of Dasonda Singh. It has been stated that estate of Ram Kaur was purchased with the funds of Joint Hindu Family and after the death of Ram Kaur and Dasonda Singh, plaintiff along with defendant No.2 to 7, is in continuous peaceful possession of the land. It has been stated in the suit that the plaintiff had inherited the land of Ram Kaur, as Ram Kaur was paternal aunt of the plaintiff. It has been further averred that the brother of the plaintiff Major Singh defendant No.2, who was proceeded ex-parte, had suffered a collusive decree in favour of defendant No.1 and against Ram Kaur, being attorney of Ram Kaur. It has emerged from the evidence that in the suit filed by defendant No.1, defendant No.2 brother of the plaintiff who was an attorney and Ram Kaur, both appeared and admitted claim of defendant No.1 Surjit Ram. Regular Second Appeal No.2491 of 2007 Notice was issued. Defendant No.3 to 10 admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 Major Singh was proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No.1, in the written statement filed, raised many preliminary objections and on merit denied that land of Ram Kaur was inherited by the plaintiff. Facts stated in the written statement were controverted. Replication was filed. Thereafter, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether suit is within limitation ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD (Defendant No.1) 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 7. Relief. After examining the entire evidence, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove that he has any claim over the estate of Ram Kaur as it was not pleaded that the husband of Ram Kaur was not alive. It also noticed the fact that Ram Kaur herself appeared in the suit preferred by defendant No.1 and had suffered a statement in his favour. It was further stated that the judgment and decree (Ex.P-3 and P-4) were passed on 21st May, 1984 and the suit was filed in year 2004 and thus, there was a delay of 20 years in challenging the judgment and decree (Ex.P-3 and P-4). The trial Court further observed that had the consent decree been obtained by defrauding Ram Kaur, then Ram Kaur might have challenged the same on the ground of misrepresentation during her lifetime and this was not done by her. It was further concluded that the appellant – plaintiff was not a party to the civil suit, therefore being stranger he could not challenge the decree on the ground of fraud. 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2491 of 2007 Aggrieved against the same, appellant had filed the appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The same was disposed off by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who concurred with the findings of the trial Court, further concluded that there were two parcels of land, one belonging to the panchayat and another belonging to Ram Kaur. It was held that 63 kanal and 10 marlas of land, being shamlat deh, belonged to the panchayat and same could not be passed by way of decree by Ram Kaur, as she had no title over the said land and the civil suit in respect of the shamlat deh land was not maintainable. However, regarding the part of land, over which Ram Kaur had a clear title, it was held that the same was rightly decreed in a civil suit preferred by defendant No.1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the findings of the two courts below by saying that once it was found that Ram Kaur could not suffer the decree qua shamlat deh land, therefore, it should have been construed that there was a fraud and she was also not competent to suffer decree for 9 kanal and 15 marla of land, of which she was owner. This plea raised, cannot be accepted because there is a concurrent finding of the two courts below regarding the land measuring 9 kanal and 15 marla. Counsel for the appellant has failed to formulate any substantial question of law, which could be entertained by this Court. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 21, 2008 rps 3