IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 527 of 2007 Date of Decision: 12th May, 2010 Kalawati Appellant Versus Urmila Sharma and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.1&2:Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. Civil Suit No. 61/1 of 1990 was filed by Smt. Urmila Sharma against Shri Hem Raj, her father. The said suit was compromised and Shri Hem Raj made a statement (Ext.D-8) admitting Smt. Urmila Sharma to be the owner of the property in question. On the basis of the statements made by the parties, consent decree (Ext.P-7) was passed by the Civil Court on 10.4.1990. Thereafter Smt. Urmila Sharma, raised construction on the suit land and continued to enjoy the property. Shri Hem Ram, Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 his wife Smt. Kalawati , present plaintiff lived together till the death of Shri Hem Raj, which was in April, 1999. Thereafter on 25.5.1999, Smt. Kalawati (plaintiff) filed a Civil Suit against Smt. Urmila Sharma, V.K.Sharma, Nirmala Sharma, Madhu Sharma and Minu Sharma. Now, except for Shri V.K.Sharma, all of the defendants are the daughters of Shri Hem Raj. In the suit plaintiff challenged the consent decree dated 10.4.1990 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and is thus null and void. 2. Plaintiff’s Civil Suit No.161/1 of 1999 was dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 27.9.1993 passed by Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan. 3. Aggrieved of the same, plaintiff filed an appeal, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1-NL/13 of 2004. The same was dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 9.12.2005. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove as to how the judgment and decree in question was obtained by fraud and is thus null and void. 6. The Courts below have considered the material in its entirety. The evidence has been correctly appreciated and applied. 3 Undisputedly, consent decree passed in 1990 was challenged after 1999. During his life time, Shri Hem Raj did not raise any question about the correctness of the same. He had admitted the title of Urmila Sharma with respect to the suit property. The land is measuring 54.39 sq. mts. The Courts below have rightly held that bald assertion made by PW-1 in her statement to the effect that the decree was obtained by exercising fraud by itself, would not prove the fact that decree was in fact obtained in a fraudulent manner. 7. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the material in its entirety. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Misc. application, if any, also stands dismissed. 12th May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.