RSA No. 2265 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 6772-C of 2009 and RSA No. 2265 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 24, 2009 Harbans Singh and another ...... Appellants Versus Jaswant Singh and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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. CM No. 6772-C of 2009 This application has been filed by the applicants Under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151CPC and Rule 3,Chapter 1-C,Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders seeking permission to file the instant appeal on behalf of deceased Gurbachan Kaur-plalintiff, their mother. The same is allowed. RSA No. 2265 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of plaintiff Gurbachan Kaur (since RSA No. 2265 of 2009 2 deceased) challenging the decree suffered by her. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the respondent having failed to prove any family settlement or any pre-existing right in the property in dispute the impugned decree dated 6.5.1994,being illegal, fraudulent and unregistered can be said to have conveyed any title in favour of the respondent? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, Gurbachan Kaur/plaintiff having led affirmative evidence showing that she had been defrauded by the respondent the suit filed by the plaintiff could be dismissed? c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the suit could be said to be barred by limitation? It would be seen that all the questions are interrelated. Both the courts on appreciation of evidence have found that the plaintiff was not able to establish her plea of fraud since the handwriting expert as well as the counsel who appeared on her behalf were produced, apart from other evidence. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that these findings are either based on no evidence or are based on such a misreading of evidence so as to render them perverse. As regards the plea of lack of pre-existing right learned lower Appellate Court has rightly held that this plea was not available to the mother since she herself suffered the decree and the only ground on which she could challenge the same was the ground RSA No. 2265 of 2009 3 of fraud. In view of what I have held above the question No. ( c ) pales into insignificance. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 24, 2009 sunita