RSA No. 2758 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2758 of 2006 Date of decision: 27.04.2011 Sukhminder Kaur .....Appellant Versus Ravinder Kaur and other .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.K.Chugh ,Advocate for the appellant Mr.Arun Palli,Senior Advocate with Mr.Ramanjit Singh,Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff –Sukhminder Kaur had filed a suit for declaration that she was owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of her share and the decree passed in Civil Suit No.747 of 16.11.1994 decided on 30.9.1995 was a result of fraud and impersonation. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the defendants were daughter of the deceased brother of the plaintiff. In order to grab the share of the plaintiff, defendants in connivance with each RSA No. 2758 of 2006 2 other had got the impugned decree in their favour by way of impersonation. Plaintiff had never appeared before the Court in the said proceedings. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the relationship between the parties and averred that the plaintiff herself had engaged a counsel in the earlier proceedings and had appeared before the Court and had suffered a statement in favour of the defendants. On the basis of the written statement and the statement suffered by the plaintiff, the impugned decree was passed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 5946/28321 share of land measuring 1416 Kanals 1 Marla i.e. 297 Kanals 6 Marla?OPP 2. Whether the Civil decree dated 30.9.95, suit No. 747 of 16.11.994 is illegal, null and void on the grounds as mentioned in para No.3 of the plaint and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff?OPP 3. Whether the mutation no. 1773 sanctioned on the basis of said decree is illegal, null and void? OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 5.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct?OPD 6. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the principles of res judicata?OPD 7.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the RSA No. 2758 of 2006 3 present form?OPD 8.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 9.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 10.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 11.Whether the suit for mere declaration is not maintainable?OPD 12.Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35 A CPC?OPD 12 A. Whether the suit of plaintiff is within limitation?OPP 12B. Whether the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1995 which was passed in Lok Adalat can be challenged by the plaintiff?OPP 12C.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession?OPP 13. Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal preferred by the plaintiff by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 7.4.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below had erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had never contested the earlier proceedings. The impugned decree had been obtained by impersonation. RSA No. 2758 of 2006 4 Learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that it was duly established on record that the plaintiff had engaged a counsel and had appeared before the Court in a suit filed by the present defendants and had suffered a statement in favour of the present defendants. The counsel engaged by the plaintiff in the earlier proceedings had duly supported the case of the defendants. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Zailo vs. Ram Saran and another 1996(3) PLR 747 wherein it was held as under:- “There is a sanctity to the Court proceedings and extra weight has to be given to the judicial proceedings. Otherwise it would be open to anybody to say that the judicial proceedings were taken at his or her back.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The question that requires consideration, in the present case, is as to whether the impugned decree dated 30.9.1995 in civil suit No. 747 dated 16.11.1994 was a result of fraud and impersonation. Plaintiff has deposed that she had never appeared in the earlier proceedings nor had engaged a counsel. Plaintiff also denied having made any statement in the Court admitting the claim of the present defendants. Exhibit D19 is a vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff in favour of Daljit Singh Brar, Advocate. Exhibit D20 is the written statement in the Civil suit No.747 of 16.11.1994 by the present plaintiff-Sukhminder Kaur. Exhibit D22 is the statement made by RSA No. 2758 of 2006 5 Sukhminder Kaur in the Court to the effect that the plaintiffs were her nieces and she had no objection if the suit filed by the plaintiffs (present defendants) was decreed. The said statement bears the signatures of Sukhminder Kaur and her counsel Daljit Singh Brar. Both the sides examined the handwriting expert to establish their respective pleas qua the signatures of the plaintiff Sukhminder Kaur on vakalatnma Exhibit D19, written statement Exhibit D20 and statement Exhibit D22. The handwriting expert gave opinion in favour of the party who had examined them. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to examine the other evidence on record. Daljit Singh Brar, Advocate DW4 deposed that he has been engaged as a lawyer to defend the case of Sukhminder Kaur in Civil Suit No. 747 of 16.11.1994 decided on 30.9.1995. The vakalatnama was signed by Sukhminder Kaur. The said witness also identified her signatures on the vakalatanma Exhibit D 19. The witness further deposed that the written statement was drafted, as per instructions given to him by Sukhminder Kaur, and it was signed by her after it was read over to her and she had admitted the contents of the same as correct. He also identified his own signatures on Exhibit D20/written statement. The witness further deposed that Sukhminder Kaur had made a statement in his presence and signed the same in his presence. He also identified the signatures of Sukhminder Singh on Exhibit D21. DW5 Sat Pal Singh Record Keeper deposed that on 9.3.1995, he was working as a Reader in the Court of Sh.S.K.Sachdeva, Sub Judge, Bathinda. He had recorded the statement of Sukhminder Kaur in Civil Suit No. 747 of 16.11.1994 RSA No. 2758 of 2006 6 decided on 30.9.1995. DW3 Bhupinder Singh deposed that he knew Sukhminder Kaur, plaintiff. Plaintiff was married to Dr.Ajit Singh. He had identified Sukhminder Kaur when she made statement in the Court on 9.3.1995. Sukhminder Kaur was the daughter of his paternal uncle. From the statements of the witnesses reproduced above, it is evident that Sukhinder Kaur had appeared in the suit filed by the defendants and had admitted their claim. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the impugned decree was not a result of fraud or impersonation. The said finding of fact calls for no interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2011 arya