R.S.A.No. 2029 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2029 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 21.2.2011 Kutum Piari ......Appellant Versus Deepak and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1991 passed in civil suit No.1323 of 1990 titled Deepak Kumar etc. vs. Balbir Singh and the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the said judgment and decree were illegal, null and void. Plaintiff and Balbir Singh were owners in possession of the suit land. Sugna Devi was married to Balbir Singh and plaintiff was born out of the said wedlock. However, during the life time of Sugna Devi, Balbir Singh started living with Kamlesh, mother of the defendants. Sugna Devi died in the year 1976. The decree suffered R.S.A.No. 2029 of 2010(O&M) 2 by Balbir Singh qua the suit property was illegal, null and void. Defendants in their written statement averred that the plaintiff was not daughter of Balbir Singh and was not owner in possession of the half share of the suit land. Sugna Devi was not legally wedded wife of Balbir Singh, whereas, Kamlesh was legally wedded wife of Balbir Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 22.4.1991 and mutation No.4148 sanctioned in view of above mentioned judgment and decree are illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the disputed property? OPP 3. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 6. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs U/S 35-A CPC? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 3.9.2003. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. R.S.A.No. 2029 of 2010(O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the decree in question was passed in the year 1991, whereas, the plaintiff filed the suit challenging the said decree in the year 1997. Thus, the suit was filed by the plaintiff after the expiry of period of limitation. The suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed on this score. Plaintiff herself did not appear in the witness box in support of her case. Husband of the plaintiff, Gaje Singh, appeared on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis of power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in his favour. It has been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge that as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93, plaintiff had already taken her half share which belonged to her mother Sugna Devi and after the death of Sugna Devi, remaining half share come to Balbir Singh. The plaintiff could have challenged the decree only on the allegation of fraud. However, the plaintiff had failed to establish that the decree dated 21.4.1991 was a result of fraud or impersonation. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to fail. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 21, 2011 anita