RSA No.1031 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.1031 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.03.2010 **** Raja Ram . . . .Appellant Versus Subhash Chander . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration has been dismissed. Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute situated in the revenue Estate of village Sukherawala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa and has challenged the validity of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.452 of 2001 by Shri S.K. Khanduja, the then learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dabwali in suit titled as “Subhash Chander Versus Raja Ram” dated 15.12.2001, on the ground that it has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession and/or to alienate the suit property in any manner. In reply, appellant had alleged that the plaintiff himself had suffered the RSA No.1031 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - decree dated 15.12.2001 pursuant to a family settlement and since then he is in physical possession over the suit land, therefore, the question of his interference does not arise. On the pleadings of the parties, relevant issues were framed by the learned trial Court and after taking documentary and oral evidence on record, led by both the parties, the suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below after recording a finding of fact to the effect that the impugned decree was suffered by the plaintiff himself after filing written statement of admission (Ex.D1), which bears his signatures. The plaintiff himself appeared in Court and recorded his statement (Ex.D2) and has been identified not only by his Advocate but also by DW1 Rameshwar Lumberdar, resident of village Jandwala Bishnoian. It was also found that the Advocate, who had appeared in the said Suit on behalf of the plaintiff and had drafted the written statement, appeared as DW3 and proved the same. Learned Courts below have found that even if the family settlement, which is reduced into writing between the parties is not placed on record, would not make much difference because it has been proved that plaintiff had filed a consenting written statement by putting his signatures, appeared in the Court suffered a statement, identified by his Advocate and Lumberdar of Village Jandwala Bishnonian and this fact has been proved by his Advocate, who appeared as DW-3. Thus, it was found that the solitary statement of the plaintiff that a fraud has been played in the name of preparing a document for the purpose of turn of water is baseless. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has basically repeated the facts and referred to the documents on record but unfortunately he could not cause a dent in the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Even the questions of law, which have been framed, are in general and no question of law has been RSA No.1031 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - framed, which could be called a substantial question of law, in order to warrant interference in the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is, thus, dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 09.03.2010 JUDGE Vivek