Amrit Lal Bahri, J. - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below. The Plaintiff Kapoor Kaur claiming herself to be widow of Jagir Singh filed the suit for declaration that decree dated April 10, 1980 in Civil suit No. 222 of 1980 Dalip Singh and Ors. v/s. Jagir Singh passed by Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra was null, void, inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon her reversionary rights. The suit was contested by the Defendants inter alia alleging that the contested decree aforesaid was valid and that Kapoor Kaur was not widow of Jagir Singh. On the pleadings, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the impugned decree is illegal void and not binding on the Plaintiff for the reasons given in the plaint. If so to what effect? OPP. 2 -A. Whether the Respondents willfully disobeyed order of the court, If so its effect? OPP 2. Whether the Plaintiff has no locus -standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the Plaintiff is estopped to file the present by her own act and conduct? OPD 3 -A. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land? OPD 4. Relief.
(2.) IT is not necessary to refer to the findings recorded issuewise. Suffice it to say that Kapur Kaur was held to be widow of Jagir Singh and that Jagir Singh suffered a consent decree in favour of Dalip Singh and others. The Plaintiffs had failed to establish that some body else impersonated in place of Jagir Singh when the civil suit was disposed of resulting in the consent decree.
(3.) SHRI S.S. Rathore, advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant has argued that cogent evidence was produced to show that thumb impression of Jagir Singh on Exhibit P -3 a sale -deed did not tally with the thumb impressions on the written statement and the statement made in the earlier suit which resulted in passing of the consent decree. In this respect, he referred to the evidence of the expert PW 8 Yashpal Chand Jain. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the evidence of the aforesaid witness if not sufficient to prove that thumb impression on the sale -deed Exhibit P -3 was in fact of Jagir Singh Shri N.K. Jain DW 7 was produced by the Defendants who has deposed that the original thumb impressions on Exhibit P -3 were super imposed and thus not decipherable. The evidence of PW 8 Shri Yashpal Chand Jain that the thumb impressions are decipherable and they do not tally with the thumb impressions on the Court papers, is not helpful to the Appellant. The evidence of Shri Yashpal Chand Jain could only be helpful in deciding the case if from other cogent evidence it has been established that Exhibit P -3 contained thumb impressions of Jagir Singh and that too could be decipherable vide this sale deed, Bir Singh is alleged to have sold a plot to Mulkha Singh. Both of them were produced by the Plaintiff but they did not support her so far as the execution of this document is concerned. According to them, the plot was in fact sold but no sale deed was executed. One Bulkar Singh was also produced by the Plaintiff who was another attesting witness of Exhibit P -3 in order to prove that Jagir Singh had thumb marked this document. Even if for the sake of argument this evidence is accepted, that will not take the Appellant 's case any further as the original thumb impression purporting to be that of Jagir Singh was in blue ink whereas the super imposed thumb impression is with black ink. With respect to the other thumb impressions on this very document the evidence of the expert Shri N.K. Jain, DW 7 is that it was slightly erased and then super imposed with black thumb impression. The net result is that the original thumb impressions purporting to be that of Jagir Singh were super imposed, previously. With the super imposed thumb impressions, the comparison of the disputed thumb impression on the Court papers i.e. written statement and statement of Jagir Singh consenting to the passing of the decree is of no consequence. Both the Courts below were right in thus coming to the (sic) that the Plaintiff had (sic) to prove that a person other than Jagir Singh had appeared in the civil Court and connected to the decree passed. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further argued that other oral evidence should be taken into consideration and the evidence of the two Advocates produced by the Defendants that it was Jagir Singh who appeared in the Court and consented to the passing of the decree, is not reliable These witnesses are DW5 Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate and PW 6. Nirmal Singh, Advocate. In particular reference has been made to the evidence of Nirmal Singh, Advocate, who gave the age of Jagir Singh about 50 years whereas according to the counsel Jagir Singh was aged about 80 years. It has further been argued that both these Advocates were junior to the same Advocate who had presented the plaint on behalf of Dalip Singh and others and their evidence should be ignored. In my view this contention cannot be accepted. When it is a case of consent decree suffered in Court, the parties would engage counsel who may be of one party or one group.;