R.S.A.No. 2963 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2963 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Darshani Devi and others ......Appellants Versus Bhagat Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that judgment and decree dated 1.9.1984 passed in civil suit no.665 titled Bhagat Ram vs. Kishni were illegal, null and void. The said judgment and decree were suffered by Kishni in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. The revenue entries sanctioned on the basis of the said judgment and decree were not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants R.S.A.No. 2963 of 2010 (O&M) 2 No.5 and 6. Santu was the owner of the property in dispute. Ram Saran, Bhushan and Punnu were sons of Santu, whereas, Kishni was his wife. Santu died in the year 1975. Kishni had suffered a decree in favour of sons of Bhushan and Punnu. Plaintiffs and defendants No.5 and 6 were the legal heirs of Ram Saran, son of Santu. Plaintiffs and defendants No.5 and 6 being legal heirs of Kishni were liable to inherit her share out of the suit property along with defendants No.1 and 2. Defendants No.1 to 4, in their written statement, averred that Kishni was the absolute owner of the property inherited by her from her husband and therefore, she was competent to deal with the same in the manner she liked. A compromise decree was passed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 dated 1.9.1984 and since then the said defendants were exclusive owners in possession of the suit land in equal shares. Defendants No.5 and 6 had filed a civil suit No. 262/94 of 1987 and the same was dismissed on 22.5.1996. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No.5 and 6 are the joint owners in possession of the suit land up t the 1/3rd share each, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1984 passed in civil suit no.665 titled Bhagat Ram etc. vs. Smt. Kishni is illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP R.S.A.No. 2963 of 2010 (O&M) 3 3. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No.5 and 6 are entitled to get mesne profit/compensation till the delivery of joint possession? OPP 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is hit by the law of res-judicata? OPD 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 9. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 26.3.2008. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the parties are related to each other. Kishni had inherited 1/4th share of the property belonging to her husband. Thus, Kishni became absolute owner of the land inherited by her. She could deal with the property belonging to her in the R.S.A.No. 2963 of 2010 (O&M) 4 manner she liked. The suit was filed by defendants No.1 and 2 against Kishni and the same was decreed on 1.9.1984 on the basis of admission made by Kishni. Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the said judgment and decree was a result of fraud. Defendants no.5 and 6 had challenged the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1984 in the year 1987 but the suit was dismissed. Now the plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1984 in the year 1999. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was time barred. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 09, 2011 anita