Regular Second Appeal No. 4962 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No. 4962 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 03.10.2011 Sadhu Singh and others ....Appellants Vs. Manjit Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Ms. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the appellants. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) The judgment and decree dated 19.03.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the judgment dated 21.01.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, has been challenged by way of this regular second appeal by the plaintiffs- appellants (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiffs'). The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that Manjit Kaur-respondent No.1, got executed a sale deed dated 26.03.1996 in her favour from Chint Kaur (now deceased) mother of the appellants. The said sale deed was out of the joint family property. Originally, Jagir Singh was the owner of the suit property and after his death, the property was inherited by the plaintiffs and Chint Kaur, his wife. On coming to know about the sale deed in question, the plaintiffs had filed a civil suit, which they had lost Regular Second Appeal No. 4962 of 2010 (O&M) 2 and appeal was also decided against them. The basic issue raised by the plaintiffs in the case is that the suit property is joint Hindu Family Property and the sale deed dated 26.03.1996 executed by Chint Kaur in favour of Manjit Kaur is the result of fraud and misrepresentation. On perusal of the record, it transpires that Chint Kaur having received her share, had transferred the same by way of registered sale deed dated 26.03.1996 in favour of Manjit Kaur. As such, the said share in the hands of Chint Kaur cannot be said to be joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property qua the plaintiffs. No evidence with regard to the fraud and misrepresentation worth believing has been led. It would further be significant to mention here that the suit is barred by principles of res judicata. The previous suit filed by Sadhu Singh etc., vide which the said sale deed was challenged, was decided on 08.06.1999 and that has attained finality. In the said case, the plaintiffs as well as Chint Kaur and Manjit Kaur were the parties. Therefore, a specific issue No.6-A in that respect was framed in the present case, which reads as under:- 6-A. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata? OPD The said issue was decided against the plaintiff. Actually, in the suit filed by Chint Kaur herself, to challenge the said sale deed, the present plaintiffs were initially the defendants. However, on the death of Chint Kaur, Sadhu Singh etc., being legal heirs of Chint Kaur, became the plaintiffs. As such, the previous judgment will certainly amount to res judicata against them. Regular Second Appeal No. 4962 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Even otherwise, the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 509 days in filing and 108 days in refiling and no proper explanation has been given for condonation of the aforesaid delay. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed in limine. (A.N.JINDAL) October 03, 2011 JUDGE ajp