R. S. A. No. 4908 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4908 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 19, 2010 Janki Parsad and others .... Appellants Vs. Smt. Santosh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. N. S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 14527-C of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 176 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : This is appeal by some of the defendants (including legal representatives of defendant no.1 since deceased), having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent no.1-Santosh filed suit seeking declaration that she is owner of 1/9th share in 40 kanals 2 marlas land and is entitled to seek partition of the joint land. The plaintiff also sought declaration that decree dated 11.10.1990 passed in Civil Suit No.1032 dated 07.08.1990 by Sub R. S. A. No. 4908 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Judge Ist Class, Rewari and consequent mutation No.1815 dated 23.02.1992 are liable to be set aside and the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of her share in the land. It was alleged that the plaintiff herein never appeared in the previous suit No.1032 dated 07.08.1990 nor engaged any counsel nor filed any written statement therein and therefore, consent decree passed therein is illegal and null and void. Only the appellants herein contested the suit. They admitted that the plaintiff herein was never summoned in the previous suit nor she filed vakalatnama and written statement therein nor her statement was recorded. However, plaintiff's sisters Choti Devi and Rewati had filed written statement in that suit. Plaintiff is also sister of the defendants. However, plaintiff has only 1/54th share in the disputed land. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff, as prayed for. First appeal preferred by the appellants herein has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 02.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. It is undisputed that the plaintiff did not appear in the previous suit, in which she was arrayed as defendant no.4 nor filed any written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs of that suit. Consequently, the decree passed in the said previous suit qua the plaintiff herein is a nullity and the consequent mutation sanctioned on the basis of said decree is also null and void. The suit land was owned by Matadin – father of the parties. He left behind nine heirs, plaintiff being one of them. Consequently, the plaintiff inherited 1/9th share in the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellants could not advance any R. S. A. No. 4908 of 2009 (O&M) 3 meaningful argument in support of the stand of the appellants that the plaintiff had only 1/54th share in the suit land. Judgments of both the courts below are well reasoned and well founded. It is manifestly proved that plaintiff has 1/9th share in the suit land. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments of the courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 19, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE