CHANOO DEVI Vs. AMI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants appeal filed under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated 25-3-2003 of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani reversing the findings recorded by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani. The Civil Judge in her judgment and decree dated 13-3-2002 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent while in appeal his suit has been decreed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent in his Civil Suit No. 677 of 9-2-1995, has sought a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of half share of suit land and the judgment and decree dated 28-1-1995 alleged to have been suffered by him is null and void and not binding on his rights. Therefore, it was claimed that the same was liable to be set aside. A further prayer was made to the effect that the defendant appellant be restrained from interfering in his possession over the suit property or alienating the same. The plaintiff-respondent further claimed that he has been owner in possession of the suit land and he had never entered into any kind of family settlement nor he suffered any decree like judgment and decree dated 28-1-1995. It has been alleged that the aforementioned judgment and decree has been obtained by the defendant-appellant by playing fraud and misrepresentation upon him. It is further alleged that an agreement to sell with regard to sale of tractor was executed on 13-1-1995 but under the garb of execution of the aforementioned instrument, some other papers were got signed from him. The plaintiff-respondent also averred that he was brought to Tehsil Siwani where defendant-appellant purchased the stamp paper worth Rs. 3/-, on which an agreement to sell the tractor was got typed. The defendant-appellant also got his thumb Impression affixed on some paper and he was asked to sit outside a room. He was never produced before any officer but the defendant-appellant procured the judgment and decree dated 28-1-1995 by producing one Chunni Lal impersonating the plaintiff-respondent before the Civil Judge. It was further been claimed that the plaintiff-respondent was residing with his real nephew Rajinder Singh and his family and there was no reason or occasion to transfer his land to the defendant-appellant. The fraud committed upon the plaintiff-respondent came to his notice on 1-2-1995 because the defendant-appellant proclaimed himself to be the owner of the land in the presence of Rajinder Singh and Balbir. Therefore, the suit has been filed.

(3.) The stand taken by the defendant- appellant is that the suit was not maintainable. There was no cause of action or locus standi etc. to file the suit. On merits, it was claimed that he is owner in possession of the suit land while denying the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in procuring the impugned judgment and decree. The defendant-appellant further claimed that the decree has been suffered by the plaintiff- respondent by making a statement before the Court. It was denied that the plaintiff- respondent is residing with Rajinder Singh who is his real nephew, claiming that he has been living with defendant-appellant and in lieu of the services rendered by him plaintiff-respondent had suffered a decree in his favour.