IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.3512 of 1985 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.12.2010 Smt. Sehaj Kaur .....Appellant Vs. Amar Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff's second appeal, challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit, for declaration to the effect that the alleged gift deeds dated 6.6.1962 and 3.7.1963 alleged to be executed by her are illegal, void and ineffective qua her rights and she was entitled to recover possession of the property in dispute, was dismissed. In the suit, it was alleged by the appellant that she was owner in possession of the suit land. She was married and a parda nashin lady and, therefore, does not understand the intricacy of the execution of the document. She is living with her grand-children. She was unable to manage the land. Defendant- respondent Amar Singh came to her in the month of June, 1962 and asked her to lease the land at the rate of Rs.2000/- per annum. She was asked to reduce the agreement into writing and on 6.6.1962, she got executed lease deed in favour of the defendants. On 3.7.1963, she was again accompanied by defendants to execute the lease deed. When she came to know about the fraud, that under the garb of lease R.S.A. No.3512 of 1985 (O&M) -2- deed, respondent has got executed gift deed, the present suit was filed. Defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the averments and stated that they were in possession as owners of the suit land. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land as detailed in para No.2 of the plaint as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the gift deeds dated 6.6.62 and 3.7.63 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants are illegal, void and ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff as alleged?OPP 3. Whether the suit is barred by time?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the defendants have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession as alleged in the written statement?OPD 6. Whether the present suit is barred by principles of resjudicata?OPD 7. Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad on account of delay and latches?OPD 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD R.S.A. No.3512 of 1985 (O&M) -3- 10. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD 11. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35-A CPC?OPD 12. Relief. After going through the evidence and hearing the arguments, the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding holding that the present suit was barred by principles of res-judicata as appellant on earlier occasions filed three suits seeking the same relief, which stood dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant and further by her act and conduct, appellant was stopped from filing the present suit. It may be noticed that this appeal was admitted on 11.4.1986. On February 11, 2009, the appellant was granted an opportunity to place on record the substantial questions of law said to be arising in this appeal. Despite the opportunity granted, no such substantial question of law said to be arising in this appeal, has been framed and placed on record of the case. Still the learned counsel for the appellant has been heard on the merits of the case. However, in view of the aforesaid findings as noticed above, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to challenge the aforesaid findings by raising any substantial question of law arising out of this appeal. Thus, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs. December 02, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE