IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3812 of 2007 Date of Decision: 20.4.2010 Dhanwanti. ....... Appellant through Shri Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus Jagram and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri Sanjay Mittal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The plaintiff questions the judgments and decrees dated 20.11.2003 and 6.9.2007 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Rewari (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby her suit for declaration & permanent injunction and appeal have been dismissed. In the suit, she had challenged the decree dated 14.8.1992 allegedly suffered by her in favour of defendant-respondent no.1 on the ground of fraud. In his written statement, respondent no.1, who is brother of the plaintiff and the beneficiary, protected the decree dated 14.8.1992 in his favour by denying the allegation of fraud. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court returned a R.S.A.No.3812 of 2007 -2- .... finding against the plaintiff and held the decree in question to be valid. In the instant appeal, the contention raised before this Court is that the report of the handwriting expert, who had compared the admitted thumb impressions of the plaintiff with those of hers allegedly appearing on the file of decree dated 14.8.1992, established the fact that the latter did not belong to her and, therefore, the Courts below ought to have derived an inference in her favour by relying on the same. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant argued that the Courts below have discarded the said report of the handwriting expert and have, thus, committed an error. He further argued that the decree dated 14.8.1992 was being questioned only on the ground of fraud and not on any other ground and, therefore, the report of handwriting expert, who was examined by the plaintiff, was sufficient to cast an aspersion on its validity. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 contended that the decree in question was validly suffered by the plaintiff and was a result of family settlement in which she and another sister, namely, Sheobai, had transferred their shares of land in favour of respondent no.1, while two other sisters had suffered similar decree in favour of another brother. He, thus, submitted by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Prabhu Lal Versus Laxmi and others, 2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 199 that such a family settlement is recognized and in the event of a sister suffering a decree in favour of a brother, the same can be considered to be a valid alienation. It was urged by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the report of the handwriting expert examined by the R.S.A.No.3812 of 2007 -3- .... plaintiff had rightly been discarded as the comparison was made with her thumb impressions appearing on the amended plaint which was filed subsequent to the suit and, therefore, could not have been considered to be admitted thumb impressions. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the impugned judgments. The only question that is to be determined is as to whether the decree suffered by the plaintiff on 14.8.1992 was a result of fraud and impersonation. It is a settled principle of law that the fraud has to be established beyond any shadow of doubt by the party, who alleges the same. The plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW1. She did not deny the decree, but pleaded fraud. Strangely enough, the decree was not suffered exclusively by the plaintiff in favour of respondent no.1,but was jointly suffered by her along with her sister-Sheo Bai, who has not chosen to dispute the same. There is material on record to show that two other sisters had suffered similar decree in favour of another brother of respondent no.1. From here, one gets an insight into the fact of family settlement between brothers and sisters which was duly acted upon. Respondent no.1 examined Sheo Bai as DW2 and she admitted his claim. She also stated about the participation of the plaintiff in the proceedings which led to the passing of decree dated 14.8.1992. In such an eventuality, I am afraid, the plea of fraud as raised by the plaintiff does not inspire much confidence. No other point has been urged. R.S.A.No.3812 of 2007 -4- .... On the basis of the above discussion, appeal is held to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. April 20,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge