RSA No. 450 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 450 of 2004 Decided on :02-04-2009 Smt. Parasandi and another ....Appellants VERSUS Rohtash and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J The plaintiffs-appellants have filed the present appeal assailing the findings of the learned First Appellate Court dated 14.11.2003 by which the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court dated 25.7.2003 were reversed. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit pleading that they are the owners in possession of the suit property and an agreement to sell was entered into between them and one Balwan Singh on 17.12.1998 but subsequently on 8.1.99 they came to know through the revenue official that the suit land has been mutated in favour of the respondents on the basis of judgment and decree dated 23.5.87 i.e. Ex. P-1 and P-2 respectively. It was further pleaded that the said decree which is on record as Ex.P2 has been procured by the respondents fraudulently and that about 11½ years ago, sthe respondents brought the appellants to Sonipat and by taking advantage of their illiteracy their thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers by RSA No. 450 of 2004 2 making a mis-representation that it shall be used for making application for supply of canal water. The decree was assailed on the following grounds:- i) that the parties to the suit neither belongs to a Hindu Joint Family nor are related to each other. ii)That decree is unregistered iii)the possession of the suit property continues with the plaintiffs. The respondents who contested the suit pleaded that the parties belong to a Hindu Joint Family and supported the validity of the decree and also pleaded that it does not require registration as it is the consent decree. Following issues were framed before the learned Trial Court:- 1. Whether the judgement and decree dated 23.5.87 is illegal, null and void not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, as alleged in para no.1 of the plaint? OPD. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD. 5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD. 6. Relief. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants by holding that the parties do not belong to a Hindu Joint Family and that the impugned decree has been procured by fraud and further that since the RSA No. 450 of 2004 3 respondents had no title over the suit property, therefore, the impugned decree which was unregistered would not bind the rights of the plaintiffs- appellants. In appeal preferred by the respondents, learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court which has resulted in the filing of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the findings of the learned First Appellate Court has contended that the decree was obviously a result of fraud which has been established by the appellants by leading cogent evidence and once fraud has been established then the entire action is vitiated. There is sufficient evidence to show that the parties were not belonging to the Hindu Joint Family and in this view of the matter, there is no occasion for the appellants to suffer a decree in favour of the respondents and even if it is accepted that it was actually suffered the same being unregistered is not recognized in the eyes of law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the decree was suffered in the year 1987 about 11½ years prior to the filing of the suit and the appellants were clearly precluded from challenging the same after such an inordinate long period and that the decree was certainly to his knowledge. It was further pleaded that it was a consent decree and in view of the latest observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'Som Dev and others versus Rati Ram and another' 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 303, the same did not warrant any registration. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment. Concededly, there is a decree which came into existence in the RSA No. 450 of 2004 4 year 1987 which is being impugned by the appellants to say that it was a result of fraud, but if the pleadings are tested on the touch stone of evidence then it transpires that the pleadings raised by the appellants are incorrect. The appellant Hari Nand who is one of the plaintiffs who appeared as PW1 stated in his testimony that the respondents who are beneficiaries of the said decree were their neighbours and she even remembered the Court proceedings and the Presiding Officer being a lady. She also admitted that she was accompanied by her husband at the time of passing of the decree. She further admitted the cultivating possession of the respondents. It is reflected from her testimony that the Court had explained to her that from the date of the passing of the decree they would not remain the owners of the property. In this view of the matter, the plea of fraud raised by the appellants does not inspire any confidence. It is apparent that the Court which had passed the decree in the year 1987 had made it abundantly clear to the appellants that they were relinquishing their right over the ownership of the suit property and it was accepted by them. Accordingly, the plea of fraud has been rightly negatived by the learned First Appellate Court. That apart it is to be noticed that there is clear admission on part of the appellants that the suit property was in possession of the respondents. The decree having been passed in the year 1987 and the possession being with the respondents, it is not understandable as to how the same was challenged after period of 11 ½ years. Obviously, the suit is also barred by limitation. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants that such a plea was never raised by the respondents was without any force for the simple reason that plea of limitation can be raised at any RSA No. 450 of 2004 5 time and being a question of law can be answered. In this view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Moreover, no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. April 2 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge