RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2006 and the appeal was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.01.2009. As per the averments made, appellant is recorded as owner in possession of the land measuring 1/5th share in the total land measuring 30 kanals 8 marlas being 1/2 share of 61 kanals 6 marlas vide jamabandi for the year 1999 -2000 fully detailed in para No.1 of the plaint. It is her further case that she never transferred her share of the land in question in the name of defendant and the Civil Court decree dated 14.5.1990 vide civil suit No.276 of 1990, whereby her share has been transferred in favour of the defendant is the result of fraud and mis -representation as she never appeared before the Court to transfer the said decree in favour of the defendant and the decree has been got passed by producing some other lady in the Court.
(2.) IT has been further averred by the plaintiff that she came to know about the aforesaid judgment and decree only on 20.02.2003 when she got a copy of the jamabandi of her land from the Halqa Patwari. Defendant refused to admit the claim of the appellant. Hence the necessity arose to file the suit. Upon notice, defendant -respondent appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the plaintiff suffered a civil Court decree of the above said land in favour of the defendant vide civil suit No.276 of 1990. She herself put in appearance in the Court after engaging her counsel and filed written statement as well as recorded her statement in the Court by admitting the defendant as owner in possession of the suit property. It was denied that defendant got this civil suit decree in her favour by placing some other lady in place of plaintiff before the Court.
(3.) IT was stated that she had suffered the decree with her free Will and consent and the suit was also time barred as the decree was well within her knowledge. Thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Replication to the written statement was also filed by the plaintiff. In the replication, the plaintiff controverted the averments of written statement and reiterated her stand taken in plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - 1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1990 is illegal, null and void and the defendant is liable to be restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner on the grounds alleged in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has no locus -standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD 6. Relief. ;