RSA No. 5003 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 14735-C of 2009 and RSA No. 5003 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: March 10, 2010 Hoshiar Singh ...... Appellant Versus Sunehri and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 14735-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 87 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 5003 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that a collusive decree obtained against him was based on fraud and, therefore, he continued to remain the owner of the property in dispute and that its subsequent sale by the decree holder in favour of the respondents was RSA No. 5003 of 2009(O&M) 2 illegal and void. The plea taken by the appellant was that actually one Sunehri Devi had approached him to stand as surety for her so that she could take a loan and that he had gone to the Tehsil for that purpose and it was there that the fraud was practiced on him by getting his signatures etc. Both the Courts, however, arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant had not been able to prove the said fraud. No reason was given as to why and in what circumstances the appellant had agreed to even stand as surety for the aforesaid Sunehri Devi. Consequently both the Courts held that the decree obtained by Sunehri Devi against the appellant could not be held to be vitiated by fraud and thereafter dismissed the suit. The following question has been proposed:- “ i) Whether the collusive decree can be obtained on the basis of the adverse possession when ownership and possession have been admitted prior to 1989 when the suit was filed?” It would be seen that the question proposed is a pure question of fact. Even before the Courts below learned counsel has not been able to establish the said plea on fact. Consequently holding the question proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 10, 2010 sunita