R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.3.2011 Chander Hass and others ......Appellants Versus Gian Chand and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Ashok Kumbbar, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.8.1988 passed in Civil Suit No.622 of 1988 and Mutation No. 1297 sanctioned on the basis of the said decree on 24.5.1989. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that plaintiff Ram Sarup, Kehar Chand-defendant No.1 and Mam Raj were real brothers and were joint owners in possession of the suit land. In March 1999, plaintiff approached Halka Patwari to get copy of the revenue record. Plaintiff came to know that defendants No.2 to 5 had got the impugned decree in their favour from Mam Raj qua the suit land. Mam Raj had never appeared in the Court nor had made any statement in the Court. Mam Raj had not filed any R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2010 (O&M) 2 written statement in the earlier suit. No summons have been served on Mam Raj regarding the alleged suit. Mam Raj had died on 5.4.1989 who had never disclosed the execution of the decree to anybody. The special power of attorney dated 28.7.1988 was a fake and a forged document. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5, in their written statement, averred that decree in question was legal and valid. Plaintiff had instituted one civil suit through deceased Mam Raj, but the said suit was dismissed. Mam Raj had been served by the defendants during his life time. During the pendency of the suit Ram Sarup-plaintiff died and his legal heirs were brought on record. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property after the death of Mam Raj by inheritance ? OPP. 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the civil court decree dated 17.8.1988 passed in civil suit no. 622/88 alongwith mutation no. 1297 is illegal, null & void as per the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP. 3. Whether the defendants have forcibly and illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land ? OPP. 4. If issues no.1 to 3 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land ? OPP. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form ? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2010 (O&M) 3 present suit ? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts from the court, if so, its effect ?OPD. 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ? OPD. 10. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for advalorum court fee ? OPD. 11. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kurukshetra dismissed the suit of the legal representatives of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree legal representatives of the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Ram Chander had three sons, namely, Mam Raj, Kehar Chand and Ram Sarup. Appellants are the legal representatives of Ram Sarup- plaintiff. The decree under challenge was suffered by Mam Raj in favour of sons of Kehar Chand. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record had given a finding of fact that the impugned decree was a legal and a valid decree. Defendants No.2 to 5 had filed Civil Suit No.622/88 against R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Mam Raj. In the said suit defendants No.1 appeared on behalf of Mam Raj on the basis of power of attorney executed in his favour. The said suit was decreed on 17.8.1988 on the basis of admission made by the defendant. The plaintiffs had failed to establish that the power of attorney dated 28.7.1988 did not bear the thumb impressions of deceased Mam Raj. The expert, examined by the plaintiff, to establish that the thumb impressions of Mam Raj on the power of attorney dated 28.7.1988 were forged did not support the case of the plaintiff. Rather the expert, examined by the defendants, opined that the thumb impressions on the power of attorney Ex.D-1 were of deceased Mam Raj. On the basis of the said power of attorney, defendant No.1 appeared before the Court on behalf of defendant Mam Raj and admitted the case of the plaintiffs in the said suit. The said decree was passed in the year 1988. A suit was filed by Mam Raj bearing Suit No. 783/88 challenging the decree dated 30.9.1988, but the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.1988. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly held that the decree in question was a legal and a valid decree as the appellants had failed to establish that the decree was a result of fraud or misrepresentation. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 4, 2011 Anand