Krishna Ram (since deceased) through (since deceased) through LRs v. Ajay Kumar
Case Details
RSA-427-1999 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-427-1999 (O&M) Reserved on:- 27.10.2025 Reserved on: Date of Decision :04.11.2025 Date of Decision : Krishna Ram (since deceased) through (since deceased) through LRs ....Appellants VERSUS Ajay Kumar ....Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Purusharth Dhull, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Purusharth Dhull, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Purusharth Dhull, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant– The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant plaintiff Krishna Ram against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1999 passed by plaintiff Krishna Ram against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1999 passed by plaintiff Krishna Ram against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1999 passed by plaintiff Krishna Ram against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1999 passed by Judge, Jagadhri, whereby the judgment and decree the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, whereby the judgment and decree Judge, Jagadhri, whereby the judgment and decree the learned Additional District dated 14.05.1997 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri in a suit for dated 14.05.1997 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri in a suit for dated 14.05.1997 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri in a suit for dated 14.05.1997 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri in a suit for declaration, were reversed. declaration, were reversed. Brief Facts 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Krishna Ram filed a The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Krishna Ram filed a The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Krishna Ram filed a The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Krishna Ram filed a laration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land laration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land laration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 27 kanals 17 marlas and 1/6th share of land measuring 10 kanals 17 measuring 27 kanals 17 marlas and 1/6th share of land measuring 10 kanals 17 measuring 27 kanals 17 marlas and 1/6th share of land measuring 10 kanals 17 measuring 27 kanals 17 marlas and 1/6th share of land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, rights appurtenant thereto in Shamlat Deh etc., District Yamuna Nagar, with all rights appurtenant thereto in Shamlat Deh etc., rights appurtenant thereto in Shamlat Deh etc., District Yamuna Nagar, with all TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-427-1999 (O&M) -2- - and further sought a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated and further sought a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated and further sought a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated and further sought a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passed in favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled 29.04.1988 passed in favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled 29.04.1988 passed in favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled 29.04.1988 passed in favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram” by the Court of “Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram Shri M.L. Bansal, the then Sub of Shri M.L. Bansal, the then Sub Class, Jagadhri, is illegal, null and void, ineffective and not binding upon Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri, is illegal, null and void, ineffective and not binding upon Class, Jagadhri, is illegal, null and void, ineffective and not binding upon Class, Jagadhri, is illegal, null and void, ineffective and not binding upon
Legal Reasoning
the rights of the plaintiff. It was also prayed that mutation No. 844 attested by A.C. the rights of the plaintiff. It was also prayed that mutation No. 844 attested by A.C. the rights of the plaintiff. It was also prayed that mutation No. 844 attested by A.C. the rights of the plaintiff. It was also prayed that mutation No. 844 attested by A.C. the said decree and further II Grade, Jagadhri, on 22.07.1988 in pursuance of the said decree and further II Grade, Jagadhri, on 22.07.1988 in pursuance of II Grade, Jagadhri, on 22.07.1988 in pursuance of entries regarding ownership and possession based on the said decree are also entries regarding ownership and possession based on the said decree are also entries regarding ownership and possession based on the said decree are also entries regarding ownership and possession based on the said decree are also illegal, null and void, and that a decree for permanent injunction be passed illegal, null and void, and that a decree for permanent injunction be passed illegal, null and void, and that a decree for permanent injunction be passed illegal, null and void, and that a decree for permanent injunction be passed on of the restraining the defendant from interfering in the actual physical possession of the restraining the defendant from interfering in the actual physical possessi restraining the defendant from interfering in the actual physical possessi plaintiff over the land in dispute. plaintiff over the land in dispute. 3. The suit was filed against Ajay Kumar, minor son of Shri Babu Ram, The suit was filed against Ajay Kumar, minor son of Shri Babu Ram, The suit was filed against Ajay Kumar, minor son of Shri Babu Ram, The suit was filed against Ajay Kumar, minor son of Shri Babu Ram, Briefly stated, the plaintiff through his father and natural guardian, Shri Babu Ram. Briefly stated, the plaintiff through his father and natural guardian, Shri Babu Ram. through his father and natural guardian, Shri Babu Ram. t land mentioned above and that alleged that he is the owner in possession of the suit land mentioned above and that alleged that he is the owner in possession of the sui alleged that he is the owner in possession of the sui the defendant, being a minor, and his father have no concern with the plaintiff or the defendant, being a minor, and his father have no concern with the plaintiff or the defendant, being a minor, and his father have no concern with the plaintiff or the defendant, being a minor, and his father have no concern with the plaintiff or the land in dispute. It was further averred that in the year 1988, the father of the the land in dispute. It was further averred that in the year 1988, the father of the the land in dispute. It was further averred that in the year 1988, the father of the the land in dispute. It was further averred that in the year 1988, the father of the rety for him in order to defendant, Babu Ram, requested the plaintiff to stand surety for him in order to defendant, Babu Ram, requested the plaintiff to stand su defendant, Babu Ram, requested the plaintiff to stand su secure a loan from the bank for the construction of a pucca house. The plaintiff, secure a loan from the bank for the construction of a pucca house. The plaintiff, secure a loan from the bank for the construction of a pucca house. The plaintiff, secure a loan from the bank for the construction of a pucca house. The plaintiff, being an illiterate and old man, agreed to stand surety, and for that purpose, his being an illiterate and old man, agreed to stand surety, and for that purpose, his being an illiterate and old man, agreed to stand surety, and for that purpose, his being an illiterate and old man, agreed to stand surety, and for that purpose, his to be required thumb impressions were obtained on certain papers, which were said to be required thumb impressions were obtained on certain papers, which were said thumb impressions were obtained on certain papers, which were said for the loan process. However, by playing fraud and misrepresentation, Babu Ram for the loan process. However, by playing fraud and misrepresentation, Babu Ram for the loan process. However, by playing fraud and misrepresentation, Babu Ram for the loan process. However, by playing fraud and misrepresentation, Babu Ram regarding the suit land. and the defendant got a fraudulent decree from the Court regarding the suit land. and the defendant got a fraudulent decree from the and the defendant got a fraudulent decree from the ights The plaintiff never executed any transfer deed or relinquished his ownership rights The plaintiff never executed any transfer deed or relinquished his ownership r The plaintiff never executed any transfer deed or relinquished his ownership r in any manner. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and the in any manner. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and the in any manner. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and the in any manner. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-427-1999 (O&M) -3- - consequential mutation No. 844 were the result of fraud and misrepresentation, consequential mutation No. 844 were the result of fraud and misrepresentation, consequential mutation No. 844 were the result of fraud and misrepresentation, consequential mutation No. 844 were the result of fraud and misrepresentation, obtained with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. obtained with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. obtained with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. 4. nied the allegations and asserted The defendant, on the other hand, denied the allegations and asserted The defendant, on the other hand, de The defendant, on the other hand, de that the plaintiff is related to him, being the brother of his grandfather. It was that the plaintiff is related to him, being the brother of his grandfather. It was that the plaintiff is related to him, being the brother of his grandfather. It was that the plaintiff is related to him, being the brother of his grandfather. It was pleaded that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, and that the suit land was pleaded that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, and that the suit land was pleaded that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, and that the suit land was pleaded that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, and that the suit land was e plaintiff voluntarily given to the defendant in a family settlement, in which the plaintiff voluntarily given to the defendant in a family settlement, in which th given to the defendant in a family settlement, in which th filed a suit admitting the claim of the present defendant. Based on such admission filed a suit admitting the claim of the present defendant. Based on such admission filed a suit admitting the claim of the present defendant. Based on such admission filed a suit admitting the claim of the present defendant. Based on such admission and consent, the decree was passed by the Court and consent, the decree was passed by the , which was perfectly legal, valid, Court, which was perfectly legal, valid, defendant further and binding upon all parties, including the present plaintiff. The defendant further and binding upon all parties, including the present plaintiff. The and binding upon all parties, including the present plaintiff. The stated that mutation No. 844 was rightly sanctioned in his name in consequence of stated that mutation No. 844 was rightly sanctioned in his name in consequence of stated that mutation No. 844 was rightly sanctioned in his name in consequence of stated that mutation No. 844 was rightly sanctioned in his name in consequence of the decree. It was also pleaded that under the said family arrangement, the plaintiff the decree. It was also pleaded that under the said family arrangement, the plaintiff the decree. It was also pleaded that under the said family arrangement, the plaintiff the decree. It was also pleaded that under the said family arrangement, the plaintiff The retained with him cash and jewellery in lieu of the land given to the defendant. The retained with him cash and jewellery in lieu of the land given to the retained with him cash and jewellery in lieu of the land given to the defendant further contended that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was not compulsorily defendant further contended that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was not compulsorily defendant further contended that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was not compulsorily defendant further contended that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was not compulsorily registrable, as it was passed on the basis of admission of the plaintiff in the registrable, as it was passed on the basis of admission of the plaintiff in the registrable, as it was passed on the basis of admission of the plaintiff in the registrable, as it was passed on the basis of admission of the plaintiff in the previous suit. It was also pleaded that since the decree was passed with the previous suit. It was also pleaded that since the decree was passed with the previous suit. It was also pleaded that since the decree was passed with the previous suit. It was also pleaded that since the decree was passed with the was required under sent of the plaintiff, no permission of the Court was required under sent of the plaintiff, no permission of the voluntary consent of the plaintiff, no permission of the the law on behalf of the minor defendant. The defendant further stated that the the law on behalf of the minor defendant. The defendant further stated that the the law on behalf of the minor defendant. The defendant further stated that the the law on behalf of the minor defendant. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff has already been out of possession of the suit land since the passing of the plaintiff has already been out of possession of the suit land since the passing of the plaintiff has already been out of possession of the suit land since the passing of the plaintiff has already been out of possession of the suit land since the passing of the therefore, the question of any interference in his possession decree in 1988, and therefore, the question of any interference in his possession therefore, the question of any interference in his possession decree in 1988, and The defendant also raised additional objections that the present suit does not arise. The defendant also raised additional objections that the present suit The defendant also raised additional objections that the present suit The defendant also raised additional objections that the present suit is barred by law of limitation, res judicata, that the plaintiff has no locus standi to is barred by law of limitation, res judicata, that the plaintiff has no locus standi to is barred by law of limitation, res judicata, that the plaintiff has no locus standi to is barred by law of limitation, res judicata, that the plaintiff has no locus standi to t, and that the same is not maintainable in the present form. file the present suit, and that the same is not maintainable in the present form. file the present sui 5. Replication was filed, wherein the plaintiff reiterated his earlier stand, Replication was filed, wherein the plaintiff reiterated his earlier stand, Replication was filed, wherein the plaintiff reiterated his earlier stand, Replication was filed, wherein the plaintiff reiterated his earlier stand, denying the averments made in the written statement. denying the averments made in the written statement. denying the averments made in the written statement. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-427-1999 (O&M) -4- - 6. framed vide On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were order dated 14.05.1992: order dated 14.05.1992: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as detailed in the headnote of the plaint with all the rights appurtenant detailed in the headnote of the plaint with all the rights appurtenant detailed in the headnote of the plaint with all the rights appurtenant detailed in the headnote of the plaint with all the rights appurtenant thereto in shamlat deh etc.? OPP thereto in shamlat deh etc.? OPP 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 29.04. 1988 passed in Whether the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passed in favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled as Ajay favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled as Ajay favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled as Ajay favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled as Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram with respect to the suit land is illegal, null, Kumar vs. Krishna Ram with respect to the suit land is illegal, null, Kumar vs. Krishna Ram with respect to the suit land is illegal, null, Kumar vs. Krishna Ram with respect to the suit land is illegal, null, void, ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP void, ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP void, ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP void, ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether mutation No. 844 att ested in favour of the defendant Whether mutation No. 844 attested in favour of the defendant by A.C. II Grade, Jagadhri on 22.07.1988 pursuant to the impugned by A.C. II Grade, Jagadhri on 22.07.1988 pursuant to the impugned by A.C. II Grade, Jagadhri on 22.07.1988 pursuant to the impugned by A.C. II Grade, Jagadhri on 22.07.1988 pursuant to the impugned decree and further entries with respect to the ownership and decree and further entries with respect to the ownership and decree and further entries with respect to the ownership and decree and further entries with respect to the ownership and possession on the basis of the said decree in the name of the defendant possession on the basis of the said decree in the name of the defendant possession on the basis of the said decree in the name of the defendant possession on the basis of the said decree in the name of the defendant nd void, ineffective and not binding upon the are also illegal, null and void, ineffective and not binding upon the nd void, ineffective and not binding upon the are also illegal, null a rights of the plaintiff? OPP rights of the plaintiff? OPP 4. Whether the defendant is illegally interfering in the actual Whether the defendant is illegally interfering in the actual Whether the defendant is illegally interfering in the actual physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by way of physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by way of physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by way of physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by way of alienation? OPP alienation? OPP 5. Whether the suit is barred by th e principle of res judicata? OPD Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD OPD 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-427-1999 (O&M) -5- - 9. Whether the answering defendant is entitled to special costs Whether the answering defendant is entitled to special costs A CPC, the suit of the plaintiff being false and under Section 35-A CPC, the suit of the plaintiff being false and A CPC, the suit of the plaintiff being false and under Section 35 frivolous? OPD frivolous? OPD 10. Relief. 10. Findings of the trial Court Findings of the trial Court 7. , after examining the oral and documentary evidence, The trial Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, , after examining the oral and documentary evidence, The trial Ram was the owner in possession came to the conclusion that the plaintiff Krishna Ram was the owner in possession came to the conclusion that the plaintiff Krishna came to the conclusion that the plaintiff Krishna held that the of the suit land along with all rights appurtenant thereto. The Court held that the of the suit land along with all rights appurtenant thereto. The of the suit land along with all rights appurtenant thereto. The judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled misrepresentation. Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram was obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation. Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram was obtained by way of fraud and Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram was obtained by way of fraud and It was found that the plaintiff, being an old and illiterate man, was induced by It was found that the plaintiff, being an old and illiterate man, was induced by It was found that the plaintiff, being an old and illiterate man, was induced by It was found that the plaintiff, being an old and illiterate man, was induced by Babu Ram, father of the minor defendant, to affix his thumb impressions on certain Babu Ram, father of the minor defendant, to affix his thumb impressions on certain Babu Ram, father of the minor defendant, to affix his thumb impressions on certain Babu Ram, father of the minor defendant, to affix his thumb impressions on certain those documents under the pretext of standing surety for a bank loan. However, those documents under the pretext of standing surety for a bank loan. However, documents under the pretext of standing surety for a bank loan. However, papers were later misused to procure a consent decree in favour of the minor. The papers were later misused to procure a consent decree in favour of the minor. The papers were later misused to procure a consent decree in favour of the minor. The papers were later misused to procure a consent decree in favour of the minor. The observed that the alleged family settlement forming the basis of that decree Court observed that the alleged family settlement forming the basis of that decree observed that the alleged family settlement forming the basis of that decree observed that the alleged family settlement forming the basis of that decree acquired property of was a concocted story and that the suit property was the self-acquired property of was a concocted story and that the suit property was the self was a concocted story and that the suit property was the self existing right in the he plaintiff. Since the defendant Ajay Kumar had no pre-existing right in the the plaintiff. Since the defendant Ajay Kumar had no pre he plaintiff. Since the defendant Ajay Kumar had no pre property, there could be no valid family settlement, as such arrangements property, there could be no valid family settlement, as such arrangements property, there could be no valid family settlement, as such arrangements property, there could be no valid family settlement, as such arrangements presuppose existing rights in favour of all parties. The earlier decree, therefore, presuppose existing rights in favour of all parties. The earlier decree, therefore, presuppose existing rights in favour of all parties. The earlier decree, therefore, presuppose existing rights in favour of all parties. The earlier decree, therefore, sive, fictitious, and a product of fraud, making it null and void was held to be collusive, fictitious, and a product of fraud, making it null and void sive, fictitious, and a product of fraud, making it null and void was held to be collu in the eyes of law. Consequently, the mutation sanctioned on the basis of that in the eyes of law. Consequently, the mutation sanctioned on the basis of that in the eyes of law. Consequently, the mutation sanctioned on the basis of that in the eyes of law. Consequently, the mutation sanctioned on the basis of that decree was also declared illegal, ineffective, and not binding on the rights of the decree was also declared illegal, ineffective, and not binding on the rights of the decree was also declared illegal, ineffective, and not binding on the rights of the decree was also declared illegal, ineffective, and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It was further h eld that the plaintiff continued to remain in cultivating It was further held that the plaintiff continued to remain in cultivating eld that the plaintiff continued to remain in cultivating possession of the suit land, and the defendant, through his father, was illegally possession of the suit land, and the defendant, through his father, was illegally possession of the suit land, and the defendant, through his father, was illegally possession of the suit land, and the defendant, through his father, was illegally TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-427-1999 (O&M) -6- - attempting to interfere in that possession by relying on the fraudulent decree. The attempting to interfere in that possession by relying on the fraudulent decree. The attempting to interfere in that possession by relying on the fraudulent decree. The attempting to interfere in that possession by relying on the fraudulent decree. The Court accepted the plaintiff’s e vidence that the cause of action arose only when the accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that the cause of action arose only when the vidence that the cause of action arose only when the defendant started asserting ownership and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, defendant started asserting ownership and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, defendant started asserting ownership and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, defendant started asserting ownership and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, and therefore, the suit was filed within limitation. The objections raised by the and therefore, the suit was filed within limitation. The objections raised by the and therefore, the suit was filed within limitation. The objections raised by the and therefore, the suit was filed within limitation. The objections raised by the standi, and maintainability were rejected on defendant regarding res judicata, locus standi, and maintainability were rejected on standi, and maintainability were rejected on defendant regarding res judicata, locus the ground that the earlier decree being void and fraudulent could not bar a fresh the ground that the earlier decree being void and fraudulent could not bar a fresh the ground that the earlier decree being void and fraudulent could not bar a fresh the ground that the earlier decree being void and fraudulent could not bar a fresh suit, and the plaintiff, being in possession, was fully competent to seek declaration suit, and the plaintiff, being in possession, was fully competent to seek declaration suit, and the plaintiff, being in possession, was fully competent to seek declaration suit, and the plaintiff, being in possession, was fully competent to seek declaration and injunction. 8. decreed the suit on 14.05.1997, declaring Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit on 14.05.1997, declaring decreed the suit on 14.05.1997, declaring Accordingly, the trial that the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and mutation No. 844 attested on that the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and mutation No. 844 attested on that the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and mutation No. 844 attested on that the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and mutation No. 844 attested on its basis were illegal, null, and void, and not binding upon the rights of the its basis were illegal, null, and void, and not binding upon the rights of the its basis were illegal, null, and void, and not binding upon the rights of the its basis were illegal, null, and void, and not binding upon the rights of the s permanently restrained from interfering in the plaintiff. The defendant was permanently restrained from interfering in the s permanently restrained from interfering in the plaintiff. The defendant wa peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or alienating it in any manner. peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or alienating it in any manner. peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or alienating it in any manner. peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or alienating it in any manner. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 9. , after reappreciating the evidence and the The lower appellate Court, after reappreciating the evidence and the , after reappreciating the evidence and the The lower appellate reasoning of the trial , reversed the findings primarily on the ground that the g of the trial Court, reversed the findings primarily on the ground that the , reversed the findings primarily on the ground that the plaintiff Krishna Ram had voluntarily suffered the decree dated 29.04.1988 and plaintiff Krishna Ram had voluntarily suffered the decree dated 29.04.1988 and plaintiff Krishna Ram had voluntarily suffered the decree dated 29.04.1988 and plaintiff Krishna Ram had voluntarily suffered the decree dated 29.04.1988 and failed to establish any element of fraud or misrepresentation. It was observed that failed to establish any element of fraud or misrepresentation. It was observed that failed to establish any element of fraud or misrepresentation. It was observed that failed to establish any element of fraud or misrepresentation. It was observed that Court mself had admitted in his testimony that he had appeared in Court mself had admitted in his testimony that he had appeared in the plaintiff himself had admitted in his testimony that he had appeared in and suffered the decree in favour of Ajay Kumar. His subsequent explanation that and suffered the decree in favour of Ajay Kumar. His subsequent explanation that and suffered the decree in favour of Ajay Kumar. His subsequent explanation that and suffered the decree in favour of Ajay Kumar. His subsequent explanation that he was deceived into putting his thumb impressions under the pretext of standing he was deceived into putting his thumb impressions under the pretext of standing he was deceived into putting his thumb impressions under the pretext of standing he was deceived into putting his thumb impressions under the pretext of standing surety for a loan was found inconsistent and unreliable. The appellate surety for a loan was found noted inconsistent and unreliable. The appellate Court noted contradictions in the plaintiff’s evidence and found that his conduct and admissions contradictions in the plaintiff’s evidence and found that his conduct and admissions contradictions in the plaintiff’s evidence and found that his conduct and admissions contradictions in the plaintiff’s evidence and found that his conduct and admissions in the earlier suit clearly showed conscious participation, not deception. in the earlier suit clearly showed conscious participation, not deception. in the earlier suit clearly showed conscious participation, not deception. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-427-1999 (O&M) -7- - 10. The Court held that there was no cre The dible evidence to prove that Babu held that there was no credible evidence to prove that Babu Ram, father of the minor defendant, had played any fraud. The statement of the Ram, father of the minor defendant, had played any fraud. The statement of the Ram, father of the minor defendant, had played any fraud. The statement of the Ram, father of the minor defendant, had played any fraud. The statement of the plaintiff’s own witnesses was found contradictory, and the testimony of the plaintiff’s own witnesses was found contradictory, and the testimony of the plaintiff’s own witnesses was found contradictory, and the testimony of the plaintiff’s own witnesses was found contradictory, and the testimony of the had advocate who drafted the earlier compromise showed that Krishna Ram had advocate who drafted the earlier compromise showed that Krishna Ram advocate who drafted the earlier compromise showed that Krishna Ram admitted the contents of the written statement and compromise after understanding admitted the contents of the written statement and compromise after understanding admitted the contents of the written statement and compromise after understanding admitted the contents of the written statement and compromise after understanding them. The Court observed that once the plaintiff had admitted the facts forming the Court observed that once the plaintiff had admitted the facts forming the observed that once the plaintiff had admitted the facts forming the basis of the earlier decree, he was estopped from later denying them. It was further basis of the earlier decree, he was estopped from later denying them. It was further basis of the earlier decree, he was estopped from later denying them. It was further basis of the earlier decree, he was estopped from later denying them. It was further held that the decree in question did not require registration as it merely affirmed held that the decree in question did not require registration as it merely affirmed held that the decree in question did not require registration as it merely affirmed held that the decree in question did not require registration as it merely affirmed the rights admitted by the parties and did not create new rights in immovable the rights admitted by the parties and did not create new rights in immovable the rights admitted by the parties and did not create new rights in immovable the rights admitted by the parties and did not create new rights in immovable property for the first time. property for the first time. 11. The appellate Court also observed that the possession of the The appellate suit land also observed that the possession of the suit land was rightly reflected in the revenue record in the name of the defendant Ajay was rightly reflected in the revenue record in the name of the defendant Ajay was rightly reflected in the revenue record in the name of the defendant Ajay was rightly reflected in the revenue record in the name of the defendant Ajay Kumar and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his continued possession. The plea Kumar and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his continued possession. The plea Kumar and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his continued possession. The plea Kumar and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his continued possession. The plea of limitation raised by the appellant was also found to have merit, as the suit was of limitation raised by the appellant was also found to have merit, as the suit was of limitation raised by the appellant was also found to have merit, as the suit was of limitation raised by the appellant was also found to have merit, as the suit was filed nearly four years after the 1988 decree. Consequently, it was held that the filed nearly four years after the 1988 decree. Consequently, it was held that the filed nearly four years after the 1988 decree. Consequently, it was held that the filed nearly four years after the 1988 decree. Consequently, it was held that the on issues of fraud, ownership, and possession were findings of the trial Court on issues of fraud, ownership, and possession were on issues of fraud, ownership, and possession were findings of the trial therefore declared the decree dated unsustainable. The lower appellate Court therefore declared the decree dated therefore declared the decree dated unsustainable. The lower appellate valid and binding, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial 29.04.1988 to be valid and binding, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial valid and binding, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial 29.04.1988 to be , and dismissed the suit of Krishna Ram. Court, and dismissed the suit of Krishna Ram. 12. Krishna Ram has preferred the Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Krishna Ram has preferred the Feeling aggrieved, the appellant Feeling aggrieved, the appellant present appeal, which upon notice is contested by the respondent. present appeal, which upon notice is contested by the respondent. present appeal, which upon notice is contested by the respondent.
Legal Reasoning
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant Submission of learned counsel for the appellant Submission of learned counsel for the appellant 13. Learned counsel for the appellant– Learned counsel for the appellant plaintiff Krishna Ram has argued –plaintiff Krishna Ram has argued reversing that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court reversing that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-427-1999 (O&M) -8- - the well-considered judgment of the trial considered judgment of the trial Court ntrary to law and evidence on is contrary to law and evidence on had rightly decreed the suit by holding record. It is submitted that the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit by holding had rightly decreed the suit by holding record. It is submitted that the trial that that that that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was obtained by way of fraud and the decree dated 29.04.1988 was obtained by way of fraud and the decree dated 29.04.1988 was obtained by way of fraud and the decree dated 29.04.1988 was obtained by way of fraud and earned misrepresentation and that the same was a nullity in the eyes of law. The learned misrepresentation and that the same was a nullity in the eyes of law. The l misrepresentation and that the same was a nullity in the eyes of law. The l erred in ignoring settled legal principles and the material lower appellate Court erred in ignoring settled legal principles and the material erred in ignoring settled legal principles and the material lower appellate evidence brought on record by the plaintiff. evidence brought on record by the plaintiff. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh vs. R of the Hon’ble Supreme am Singh Major and Others, Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and Others,