BALDEV SINGH Vs. BACHAN KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BACHAN Kaur W/o Shamsher Singh filed suit for declaration against her son Baldev Singh to the effect that she was owner in possession of land measuring 268 Kanals 19 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village, Nahianwala, Tehsil and Distt, Bathinda and decree passed in civil suit No. 17 of 14.1.1974 decided on 3.4.1974 was illegal, null and void and was the out come of fraud and undue influence and the same was liable to be set aside and not binding on her rights and for permanent injunction restraining him (Baldev Singh) from alienating the land measuring 268 kanals 19 marlas ibid and from taking forcible and illegal possession thereof from her. It was alleged in the plaint that she is owner in possession of land measuring 268 Kanals 19 marlas, Defendant -Baldev Singh is her son. She never suffered any decree in favour of her son -Baldev Singh any time. Decree said to have been suffered by her on 3.4.1974 in civil suit No. 17 of 14.1.1974 before Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda was never suffered by her. Decree if any was the out -come of fraud and undue influence. Pal Singh in collusion with Defendant's father -Shamsher Singh got the aforesaid decree fraudulently against her. In fact, she was told that she was going to. execute a will in favour of the Defendant and that she would remain owner of the entire property during her life time and after her death, Defendant will get l/4th share of the property from her. She was never produced before any court. Her thumb impression was never obtained by the advocate nor was he told that the ownership of l/4th share was going to be transferred. The aforesaid decree was illegal null and void and was the result of fraud, mis -representation and undue influence. It was liable to be set aside. It was not binding on her rights. She never came to know of that decree. She came to know of that decree only on 16.6.1992 i.e., a day prior to the institution of the suit, when Patwari halqa summoned her through chowkidar as mutation had been got entered by him on the basis of that decree and he wanted her consent. She told the Patwari mat decree obtained by the Defendant was false and fictitious and was the result of fraud. She never suffered any such decree. No mutation could be entered and sanctioned in favour of the Defendant.

(2.) DEFENDANT contested this suit. It was urged that the suit was barred by time. There was no limitation for challenging this decree of the year, 1974 in the year, 1992. She has suffered decree in favour of the Defendant to the extent of l/4th share of the land measuring 268 kanals 19 marlas and he is in possession of Khasra Nos, 78/6 (9 -8), 15/2(2 -19), 104/19/2min(2 -0), 21(8 -0), 22min (3 -0), 109//17/2(1 -18), 18(8 -0), 19(8 -0), out of the said land as co -sharer. She suffered that decree of her own accord in his favour. He is not a stranger to her but is her son. Decree was passed in accordance with law and with the knowledge of the Plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) WHETHER the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee? OPD