R.S.A. No. 5027 of 2010 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 5027 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: Oct. 18,2011 Maya Devi ........................................ Appellant Versus Savitri Devi etc. ................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellant. ... RITU BAHRI, J. C.M. No. 14811-C of 2010 There is a delay of 183 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons given in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. is disposed of. R.S.A. No. 5027 of 2010 (O&M) [ 2 ] R.S.A. No. 5027 of 2010 This regular second appeal is against the judgment dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2008. A civil suit No.1 of 2007 was filed by Maya Devi wife of Lakhmi for declaration. The plaintiff claims herself to be daughter of Raj Kaur. She has challenged the civil Court decree in civil suit No.167/94 titled as Megh Raj v. Raj Kaur etc. decided on 12.2.1994 being illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The family detail is being given below:- Harbhaj | ------------------------------------------------------- | | Ram Dia Baru | | Mangal Phulia | | Raj Kaur Shankar | | (Maya Devi) Megh Raj Harbhaj had two sons – Ram Dia and Baru. Ram Dia had a son Mangal who was in possession of the suit land fully detailed in paragraph 2 of the plaint. After the death of Mangal in 1983, mutation No.3107 was sanctioned in favour of Raj Kaur widow of Mangal. A civll Suit No. 600/85 was filed against Raj Kaur by Baru, second son of Harbhaj. This suit was dismissed on 24.1.1987. Thereafter, in civil suit No. 167/94 a consent decree was passed on the basis of family R.S.A. No. 5027 of 2010 (O&M) [ 3 ] settlement between Megh Raj son of Shankar who came from the family of Baru son of Harbhaj. This case was decided on 12.2.1994. After 3-1/2 years of this consent decree, Raj Kaur died. She never challenged this decree during her life time. Hence, there was no misrepresentation as alleged by the plaintiff challenging this decree in the present suit. It was denied that plaintiff Maya Devi was the daughter of Raj Kuar. The trial Court examined the decree passed in civil suit No. 167/94 titled Megh Raj v. Raj jKaur etc. and has come to a conclusion that the consent decree dated 12.2.1994 was passed with Raj Kaur and Krishna Devi along with Megh Raj and family. This decree has not been challenged by Krishna Devi. She has stated in the Court that she had appeared with Raj Kaur in civil suit No. 167/94. Krishna Devi had passed on her share to Rattan, Vinod and Bittu vide this decree. The plaintiff has not been able to prove by legal evidence that she is the daughter of Raj Kaur. The plaintiff has not challenged the passing of decree by Krishna Devi but has confined her claim to misrepresentation of Raj Kaur. The plaintiff has not challenged the decree as a whole as per the evidence led. Ex.D1 is the mutation of inheritance of Sheo Ram in favour of Chameli wherein Sheo Ram is shown to have died issueless. Ex.D3 is the mutation of Mangal in favour of Raj Kaur wherein Mangal is shown to be issueless. Plaintiff's R.S.A. No. 5027 of 2010 (O&M) [ 4 ] case is that she is the daughter of Sheo Ram and Chameli. On the death of Sheo Ram, Chameli performed a Kareva marriage with Mangal who subsequently married with Raj Kaur. Raj Kaur had brought up Maya Devi as her daughter. As per the evidence, Ex.D1 is the mutation of inheritance of Sheo Ram in favour of Chameli wherein Sheo Ram is shown to have died issueless. Similarly, Ex.D3 is the mutation of Mangal in favour of Raj Kaur wherein Mangal is shown to be issueless. Ex.D1 is the suit filed by Raj Kaur for obtaining Succession Certificate of Mangal where she has stated that she is the only legal heir of Mangal. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that she has any legal stand to challenge the consent decree passed in civil suit No. 167/94 whereby a family settlement was arrived at between Megh Raj and Raj Kaur. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 13.10.2007. In appeal, the judgment of the trial Court has been affirmed. The fact that decree was never challenged by Raj Kaur during her life time and the mutations leaves no doubt that Sheo Ram and Mangal died issueless. The revenue record was prepared long before the dispute arose and goes to prove that plaintiff was neither related to Mangal nor to Sheo Ram. The appeal has been dismissed on 17.8.2009. In view of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises for adjudication R.S.A. No. 5027 of 2010 (O&M) [ 5 ] in this appeal. Dismissed. 18.10.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE