-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 4023 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 12, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 4023 of 2010 (O&M). Bachchu Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Smt. Chander ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land, described in para No.1 of the plaint and that the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1997 passed in Civil Case No.25/14.3.1997 by the Court of Mr. B.Diwakar, the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal was the result of -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 4023 of 2010 (O&M). fraud and mis-representation played by the defendant upon the plaintiff and to the effect that as the defendant was threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land on the basis of said decree, a decree for permanent injunction be passed in his favour was dismissed by both the Courts below. I have heard Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. Plaintiff-appellant Bachchu Singh is the adopted son of Smt.Bhagwani wife of Pem Raj and defendant Smt.Chander is the daughter of Pem Raj. The plaintiff challenged the decree in question by pleading that the same had been procured by Smt.Chander from him by playing fraud. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant procured the said decree from him by threatening him that she (defendant) would question his (plaintiff's) adoption by Smt.Bhagwani. It is the admitted case of the parties that the suit land was owned by Smt.Bhagwani. Even if it is accepted that the defendant threatened the plaintiff to challenge his adoption by Smt.Bhagwani, it, in no way, can be said to be a fraud or mis-representation played by the defendant upon the plaintiff. Besides, the said decree was suffered by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 28.3.1997 whereas the instant suit challenging the said decree was filed on 21.1.1999 i.e after more than one and a half years and that too after mutation No.111172 dated 30.5.1998 in respect of the said decree had been sanctioned. The plaintiff could, -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 4023 of 2010 (O&M). obviously, raise objection before the Tehsildar who sanctioned the mutation in respect of the said decree, but it was not done by the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 12, 2011. JUDGE ak