RSA No. 3398 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3398 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.03.2011. Smt. Somna .......Appellant Vs. Mam Ram & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the decree dated 12.1.1991 on the allegations that the same was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 and 7 were the daughters of defendant No.5, whereas defendants No. 1 to 4 were the sons of defendant No.5. Defendant No.5 had suffered impugned decree dated 12.1.1991 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4. The said decree was a result of fraud and the same was liable to be set aside. The mutation sanctioned on the basis of said decree was also liable to be set aside as the same had been sanctioned without any notice to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed by plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 to 5, in their written statement, RSA No. 3398 of 2010 (O&M) -2- averred that the impugned decree was a valid one and the same had been passed on the basis of family settlement between the parties. Defendants No. 6 and 7 were proceeded ex parte. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 12.1.1991 is result of fraud played upon deceased Amar Singh and is null and void for want of registration? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to his 1/3rd share with the suit property? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 22.5.2006, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in an appeal filed by the plaintiff, by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had challenged the decree dated 12.1.1991, suffered by defendant No.5 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4. The case of the plaintiff was that Amar Singh had not appeared before the court and had not filed any written statement nor had RSA No. 3398 of 2010 (O&M) -3- suffered any statement in the court. It was averred that somebody else had been produced in the court in place of defendant No.5, when the impugned decree was passed. However, defendant No.5 in his written statement has admitted the passing of the decree in favour of defendants No.1 to 4. The decree could have been challenged by plaintiff on the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation but the plaintiff had failed to establish that the impugned decree was a result of fraud or misrepresentation. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 07, 2011 Gurpreet