RSA No.1764 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1764 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.6.2010 Smt.Shakuntla and others .....Appellants vs. Smt.Vidya and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Arvind Singh,Advocate, for the appellants. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. As per the averments in the suit, plaintiffs along with proforma defendant- respondents were the owners in possession of the suit land and the defendant-respondents had no right, title or interest in the said land. In the last week of June 2002, the plaintiff-appellants approached to the Halqa Patwari for getting the copies of the jamabandis and then it came to their knowledge that Ram Chander predecessor-in-interest of the defendant- respondents had got passed a decree dated 19.7.1993 in Civil Suit No.445 of 1993 titled as Ram Chander vs. Rajpati etc. in his favour and further transferred the suit land in favour of defendant -respondent No.4 through decree dated 8.9.2003 passed in Civil Suit No.64 of 8.9.1993 titled as Hardei v. Ram Chander and also got mutation sanctioned in the revenue record in his favour and in favour of defendant No.4, which were null and RSA No.1764 of 2010 2 void as a result of fraud and misrepresentation and thus, the aforesaid decrees and mutations were not binding on the rights of the appellants and proforma respondents. The appellants requested the contesting respondents to admit their right but of no use, and hence the present suit. Upon notice defendant respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing written statement. Various preliminary objections were raised. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff and proforma defendant respondents were never owner nor in possession of the suit land rather the defendants were the owners of the suit property, as the plaintiffs and proforma defendants voluntarily suffered a decree in civil suit No.445 of 1993 in favour of Ram Chander after a valid family settlement as Ram Chander had a grudge about transfer of land in favour of sons of Kaptan Singh by his father Vijay Singh at village Seenak and to redress the grudge of Ram Chander and to keep piece in the family, a settlement was made on the basis of said decree which was suffered by the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. Both the parties led their respective evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008 dismissed the suit of the appellants. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree, appellants filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009. While dismissing the appeal the lower Appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial Court that the plea of fraud raised by the appellants was not proved. The other grounds raised by the appellants were also repelled. RSA No.1764 of 2010 3 Still not satisfied the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Though in the grounds of appeal the appellants have raised many substantial questions of law alleged to be arising form the impugned judgment and decrees, yet the only point argued before this Court is that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record to prove the fraud committed by the defendant- respondents while obtaining the decree in question. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff-appellants have failed to prove the fraud as alleged by them. Learned counsel for the appellants was also unable to raise any worthwhile evidence to substantiate the aforesaid plea of fraud from the evidence on record. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this Appeal. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge June 29 , 2010 rk