Sukhdeep Kaur vs Tej Kaur

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The plaintiffs are in second appeal. The brief facts of the case are that Jagsir Singh was owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 3/16 share, measuring 471 Kanals 14 Marlas, situated in the revenue limits of village Nangal Kalan. He expired on 24.04.1999. After his death, plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 became owners by succession to the extent of 9/64th share. Surjit Kaur also expired, therefore, plaintiffs No. 4 and 5 became owners to the extent of 1/32 shares. The plaintiffs have alleged that the decree dated 18.05.1992 passed in Civil Suit No. 596 of 24.10.1991 titled as "Tej Kaur v. Jagsir Singh" suffered by Jagsir Singh regarding his 3/64 share in the suit land is illegal being an act of fraud etc. and no possession was transferred. It is alleged that no family settlement took place as it was not possible because there was no relationship between Jagsir Singh and Tej Kaur and since the suit property was of more than Rs. 100/-, therefore, the decree was compulsorily registrable but the same was not registered. Jagsir Singh was never served in the suit, did not engage any counsel or appear in the Court nor suffered any statement, rather he was impersonated by someone when the decree was passed. It is further alleged that mutation No. 15850 dated 08.04.1993 sanctioned on the basis of the aforesaid decree dated 18.05.1992 is also illegal. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 executed the registered sale deed dated 30.03.2007 regarding land measuring 22 Kanals in favour of her sons i.e. defendants No. 2 to 6 and the mutation sanctioned on its basis is are also illegal. Thus, the prayer was made for a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land on the basis of inheritance of Jagsir Singh and the decree dated 18.05.1992 in favour of the defendants is illegal, mutation sanctioned on the basis of the decree as well as family settlement and the sale deed and consequent mutations are also illegal, null and void and also prayed for injunction to restrain the defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit land and from alienating the suit land in any manner.

The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants No. 2 to 6 filed their joint written statement alleging that the plaintiffs have challenged the sale deed dated 30.03.2007 but proper court fee has not been paid; the suit is barred by limitation; and the land is not possessed by the plaintiffs rather defendants No. 2 to 6 are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 30.03.2007. It was also averred that the family settlement was thumb marked by Sukhdeep Kaur and other shareholders and thus, they are estopped from filing the suit.

Jagsir Singh, who had suffered the decree, died in the year 1999 but during his life time, he did not challenge the said decree, therefore, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. It is also alleged that Surjit Kaur, mother of Jagsir Singh, and Tej Kaur, defendant No. 1, are the real sisters and Jagsir Singh''s father and Tej Kaur''s husband were real brothers. It is also alleged that the decree was not required to be registered and that Jagsir Singh himself appeared in the Court, filed written statement and suffered statements twice in the Court before the decree could have been passed and the mutation thereafter have been rightly sanctioned. Defendant No. 1 filed his separate written statement resisting the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the same lines on which defendants No. 2 to 6 have filed the written statement.

On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case.

It has been, found by the Courts below, on the basis of the expert opinion, that the written statement filed in the Court and the statements suffered by Jagsir Singh bears his thumb impressions. Moreover, Jagsir Singh died in the year 1999, whereas the decree was passed in the year 1992 which could have been challenged by Jagsir Singh himself but still it has been challenged after his death though the plaintiffs have categorically stated that they came to know about the impugned decree during the life time of Jagsir Singh. Thus, it is also held that the suit is barred by limitation as it could have been challenged within the period of three years.

Counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the rights have been conferred upon the defendants by way of the impugned decree, it should have been registered and insofar as the delay part is concerned, since there was a fraud played by the defendants in passing of the decree at the hands of Jagsir Singh, it could have been challenged at any time.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and also examined the record.

The pivotal point in this case is regarding the fraud which is alleged to have been played at the time of passing of the impugned decree. The said decree has been passed in the year 1992. The plaintiffs came to know about the decree from Jagsir Singh two months before his death in the year 1999 but still the suit was filed in the year 2007. It is not explained as to why Jagsir Singh did not challenge the said decree while he remained alive for 7 years after passing of the decree and also had the knowledge thereof as the plaintiffs have alleged that they got the knowledge about the impugned decree from Jagsir Singh himself. In this regard, reliance could be placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagtar Singh and Others Vs. Ind Kaur, in which, while relying upon two other judgments in the cases of Hari Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2003 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 632 and Amar Kaur Vs. Paramjit Kaur it has been held that if the person against whom the fraud has been played in respect of sufferance of the decree, does not challenge the same, then other persons cannot challenge the same on that ground. The ground of non-registration of a decree is available to the person who had suffered the same but not raised during his life time, then it is no more available to the other persons.

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court and the fact that the decree was suffered in the year 1992 and Jagsir Singh died seven years thereafter, the present suit having been filed after 8 years of the death of Jagsir Singh cannot be considered to have been filed within the period of limitation as well. Thus, looking from any angle, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no question of law much-less substantial is found involved therein.

Dismissed.