RSA No. 1994 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1994 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: March 12 , 2010 Ramanand ...... Appellant Versus Lalit Kumar and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging a consent decree suffered by him against the sons of his brother with respect to 8 kanals of land. The appellant had filed a suit that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.95,000/- from his brother which he had promised to pay back within seven months. However, he was unable to repay the same within the time stipulated and consequently sought an extension from his brother. It was at that stage that his brother got his signatures on some blank paper and consequently manipulated those signatures and fraudulently obtained the impugned decree in favour of his sons. Interestingly the appellant did not RSA No. 1994 of 2009(O&M) 2 implead his brother whom he had accused of fraud. In the written statement it was admitted that the appellant had taken loan of Rs. 95,000/- but it was further pleaded that when he was unable to pay the amount, he had agreed to have the land transferred in favour of sons of his brother and had consequently appeared in Court, signed written statement and the Vakalatnama and had suffered a statement whereupon only the consent decree was passed. The Courts took notice of the fact that with respect to the allegations of fraud no material particulars were given and even the alleged fraudster was not impleaded as a party. Consequently the suit was dismissed. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below dated 19.8.2005 and 24.2.2009 are illegal, wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside? ii)Whether the regular second appeal is maintainable on account of misreading of evidence produced by the parties in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India? iii)Whether the decree in civil suit No.820 of 1994 is illegal, null and void, not binding upon the present appellant and liable to be set aside? iv)Whether the judgments and decrees passed in Civil Suit No. 820 of 1994 is illegal and liable to be set aside,which is not in consonance with the provision as contained under Section 23 and 25 of the Registration Act? v) Whether the property in question was transferred by way of decree which requires compulsory registration under section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act? vi)Whether the decree in Civil Suit No. 820 of 1994 has been RSA No. 1994 of 2009(O&M) 3 obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation, which is illegal and liable to be set aside? vii)Whether the decree in civil suit No. 820 of 1994 has been passed by way of fraud and misrepresentation as no substance has come in the evidence of the present respondents? It would be seen that questions No.(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) are pure questions of fact. In view of circumstances enumerated above learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. No arguments have been addressed on question No.(v). Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 12, 2010 sunita