R.S.A.No.697 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.697 of 2006 Date of Decision : July 16, 2009 Gurcharan Kaur ...Appellant Versus Rajwinder Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate, with appellant in person. Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, in a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed that she is real daughter of defendant No.- 2 Mohinder Singh from his first wife Mukhtiar Kaur, whereas, defendant No.1 is also daughter of Mohinder Singh from his second wife Ranjit Kaur. The challenge in the suit is to the decree dated 31.11.1996 suffered by Mohinder Singh in favour of defendant No.1 Rajwinder Kaur. The plaintiff alleged that the said decree is illegal or null & void as not binding on the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed, though it was held that the plaintiff is the daughter of Mohinder Singh, but the learned trial Court found that the consent decree suffered by Mohinder Singh in favour of his daughter, does not require registration. The fact that Mohinder Singh has suffered decree was found to be proved on the basis R.S.A.No.697 of 2006 2 of testimony of PW-3 Jagraj Singh. It was also found that female can never be coparcenor and Mohinder Singh being last male of the family, the suit land would be his self-acquired property. It was also held that after her marriage, the plaintiff seased to be a member of family of his father Mohinder Singh and, thus, the plaintiff has no birth right in the suit land. It was also found that the plea of fraud and misrepresentation is not available as Mohinder Singh is alive. With the said findings, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the finding that the plaintiff is the daughter of Mohinder Singh was affirmed. The decree was found to be result of fraud and misrepresentation, only for the reason that the factum of plaintiff as one of the daughters of Mohinder Singh was required to be disclosed in the earlier suit. Therefore, the said decree is a nullity. It was further held that under Hindu Law, the daughter has no birth right in the ancestral property and that since father is alive, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any share in the estate of Mohinder Singh. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Though the learned trial Court has found that the decree is not actuated by fraud or misrepresentation, but such finding has been reversed by the First Appellate Court, only for the reason that in a previous suit, the factum of plaintiff as one of the daughters has not been disclosed. In my view, the said fact by itself may not be sufficient to return a finding of such nature. The judgment referred to by the learned First Appellate Court is not for the proposition that for non-disclosure of a relation in the previous R.S.A.No.697 of 2006 3 proceedings, the decree can be declared a nullity. Since, Mohinder Singh is an absolute owner of the property, therefore, he has a right to deal with the property in any manner he considers appropriate. The non-disclosure of the plaintiff as daughter in the previous suit would not render the decree as a nullity. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. July 16, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE