RSA No. 3625 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3625 of 2007 Decided on : 20-01-2009 Gokal Chand and others ....Appellants VERSUS Smt. Kitab Kaur and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Kulbhusan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for respondent no.1. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the judgments of the Trial Court dated 16.11.2004 and First Appellate Court dated 29.3.2007. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 Kitab Kaur had filed a suit challenging the decree which was suffered by her and respondent no.2. Smt. Gainda Devi in favour of the present appellant on 25th March, 1996. It was also pleaded that mutation bearing no. 24 dated 28.5.1996 is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and the decree being un-registered was also liable to be set aside. It is contended that she is entitled to 1/3rd share out of the total holding as described in the plaint and that the decree had been a result of fraud and mis-representation as some other lady had been impersonated as plaintiff-respondent no.1 while suffering a consent decree in favour of the appellant. The appellants who contested the suit contended that the decree was perfectly in order and also pleaded that respondent no.2 Smt. Gainda Devi is real sister of respondent no.1 and both of them had transferred their RSA No. 3625 of 2007 2 share in the suit land by virtue of the decree and that after the suffering of the decree, no interest was retained by the present respondents in the suit property. The Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the decree in civil suit no. 352/1995 dated 25.3.1996 is illegal, null and void and binding on the rights of the plaintiff on the ground mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for his own act and conduct? OPD. 7. Relief. and came to the conclusion that fraud and mis-representation and also the impersonation which resulted in the decree dated 25.3.1996 stood established and consequently, set aside the same. In appeal, the findings were affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of both the Courts below to contend that the findings recorded by them are perverse and deserved to be set aside. It is contended that there was no evidence to suggest the fraud and mis-representation and impersonation and also RSA No. 3625 of 2007 3 pleaded that in the absence of any conclusive evidence regarding the hand- writing expert, the findings could not have been determined regarding the decree being the result of fraud and mis-representation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are concurrent findings of facts which were recorded regarding the decree being a result of fraud and mis-representation and therefore, the said findings in Regular Second Appeal cannot be interfered. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that there is evidence on record to suggest that the decree was a result of fraud and mis-representation and also impersonation of Kitab Kaur. Her father name was also erroneously mentioned in the general power of attorney. The name mentioned is Prudham instead of Heera Lal. Besides, that her statement in support of the decree was recorded on 13.3.1986 i.e, about 11 years before and her age was recorded as 35 years. In the suit the Courts below have observed that respondent no.1 could not be less than 70 years of age, the disparity suggesting the fraud and impersonation. No perversity has been shown in the findings recorded by the Courts below. It is a settled principle of law that the findings of facts which are not perverse cannot be interfered with. In so far as the plea of the appellant that decree ought to have been set aside to the extent of 1/3rd only is also erroneous as the decree which is result of fraud, mis-representation and impersonation has to be set aside as a whole. No merit in the appeal. Dismissed. January 20 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge