Labh Chand vs Parmeshwari Bai

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Labh Chand having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.

Appellant-Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant-Respondent Parmeshwari Bai who is wife of Plaintiff-Appellant. Consent decree dated 27.03.1995 was passed in favour of Defendant herein against the Plaintiff herein regarding suit land measuring 48 Kanals declaring the Defendant herein to be owner in possession thereof. Plaintiff in the instant suit has challenged the said consent decree by pleading that family settlement mentioned in Civil Suit No. 234 of 1995 in which decree dated 27.03.1995 was passed, never took place. The family settlement was never acted upon. Defendant started residing separately from the Plaintiff in the year 1994 due to differences between the parties. This compromise take place in March 1995. According to compromise, the Plaintiff agreed to give limited right of maintenance in the suit land to the Defendant. However, Plaintiff''s signatures were obtained on several blank papers by the Defendant and her parental family members. Now Plaintiff came to know about the impugned consent decree transferring ownership of the suit land in favour of Defendant herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration that he continues to be owner in possession of the suit land and that judgment and decree dated 27.03.1995 declaring Defendant herein to be owner in possession of the suit land are result of fraud and misrepresentation and not binding on the Plaintiff and are liable to be set aside along with consequent mutation and revenue entries. Plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from alienating the land in any manner.

Defendant contested the suit. However, relationship between the parties was admitted. Defendant alleged that three daughters were born out of the wedlock between the parties. The Plaintiff started maltreating the Defendant as there was no surviving male child. Then family settlement took place, according to which suit land was given to the Defendant. Pursuant to family settlement, impugned consent decree dated 27.03.1995 was passed declaring the Defendant herein to be owner in possession of the suit land. The said decree is legal and valid and was voluntarily suffered by the Plaintiff. On the other hand, in the year 1998, the Plaintiff has brought one Parkash Kaur as his wife, although marriage between the parties is still subsisting. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2008 dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by Plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, Plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant reiterated that the suit land was given to the Defendant for her maintenance only and she was not made owner thereof and impugned consent decree dated 27.03.1995 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, declaring Defendant herein to be owner in possession of the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted. There is only self-serving oral statement of the Plaintiff-Appellant regarding alleged fraud. The said statement is not sufficient to prove fraud which is required to be proved just like criminal charge. On the other hand, statement of Plaintiff stands rebutted by cogent evidence of the Defendant. The Defendant herself stepped into the witness box and has also examined Mr. Purshotam Futela, Advocate as DW-3 who represented the Plaintiff herein in the previous suit, in which consent decree was passed. Mr. Futela has stated that he drafted the written statement in the previous suit on the instructions of the Plaintiff herein who was Defendant in that suit. His statement was also recorded in that suit. The Plaintiff has admitted his signatures on the aforesaid written statement as well as statement made in Court in the previous suit. Consequently, it cannot be said that said decree was obtained on the basis of signatures of the Plaintiff allegedly obtained on blank papers by the Defendant and her parental family members. On the contrary, statement recorded in the court cannot be disbelieved or discarded merely on the basis of interested testimony of the Plaintiff himself. There is authenticity attached to the court proceedings including statement recorded in the court. It is not a case of impersonation because the Plaintiff has himself admitted his signatures on the statement made in court in the previous suit. The said statement, therefore, cannot be said to be result of fraud or misrepresentation, because the statement was recorded by the court and was admitted as correct by the Plaintiff before signing it.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The suit of the Plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the courts below. Concurrent finding of courts below against the Plaintiff-Appellant is fully justified by the evidence on record and is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.