RegularSecond Appeal No2 v. Mr At uI Gaur Advocat e

29 07 1975 in t he presentsuit filed for t he first t im e Anit a 2012.11.09 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh on 145197 aft er a I apseof m ore t han 22 years7 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A brief narrat ive of t he fact s would be appropriat e Maya 1 1 1 r 0 C C5 I Z C I 5 10 7 Z t l 499 RegularSecond AppealNo2 of 2008 e Devi respondent filed a suit prayingfor possession I and 72 kanals by allegingt hat t he collusive j udgm entand decree Ex P2 and Ex3 dat ed 207 1975 passed in civil suit no28C of 1975 and t he consequent m ut at ion nol 366 dat ed 281 1976 sanct ioned t hereon are null and void Maya Devi pleadedt hat she had never ent ered int o any fam ilyset t lem ent or appeared I n any court t o file a writ t en st at em ent suffered a st at em ent accept ing a fam ilyset t iem ent I t was aiso pleadedt hat her m ot her Badam o was m arried t o one Shiv Lal who died issueless Aft er his dem ise Badam o inherit ed t he est at e of Shiv Lal and t hereaft er perform eda karewa m arriagewit h one Rat na son Bhala Maya Devi was born of t his union and was known as Suraj m ukhiduring her childhood Aft er t he m urder of Badam o by appellantno 1 and Rat nat he suit land was inherit ed by Maya Devi Rat na and Bhag Chand were brought t ot rial but were acquit t ed I t furt her allegedt hat on t he dat e of passingof collusive decree as she was a m inor and t herefore I egallyincapableof ent eringint o a fam ilyset t lem ent filing a writ t en st at em ent suffering a collusive decree Bot h t he t rial and t he first appellat ecourt have recorded concurrent findingsof t hat t he j udgm entand decree dat ed 2971975 obt ained by perpet uat inga I n addI t ion concurrent findingsof fact have been recorded by t he court s below t hat on 297 1975 Maya Devi was a m I nor and t herefore I egalt y incapableof ent eringint o any fam ilyset t lem ent m uch I ess filing a writ t en st at em ent or sufferinga st at em ent concedingt he appellant s Anit a 2012.11.09 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 200 RegularSecond Appeal No2 of 2008 10 1 The first t wo quest ionsof I aw t hough generalin nat ure relat e t o t he findingst hat t he collusive j udgm ent and t he decree dat ed2971 975 were obt ained by fraud would be considered along wit h t he ot her quest ions As not iced in t he precedingparagraphs t hecourt s below are concurrent in t heir opiniont hat 1 0 0 0 I C5 Z 1 I a5 r Z lOm 11 On t he dat e of t he passing of t he j udgm entand decree dat ed 291975 Maya Devi was a m inor 21 Maya Devi is t he daught erof Badam o from t he I oins of Rat na 31 Badam o m arried Rat na aft er t he dem ise of her first husband 41 The birt h ceit ificat e ExP est ablishes t hat Maya Devi was born t o Rat na 51 Maya Devi chiidhood known as Suraj m ukhiduringher 61 MayaDevi did not appear before a court did not file a writ t en st at em ent did not suHer a st at em ent t he fam ily set t lem ent t herefore t he j udgm entand decree dt 291995 is vit iat ed on account of fraud The argum entt hat Maya Devi has failed t o prove fraud or im personat ionas t he finger print expert has deposed t hat her adm it t ed t hum b im pressionsm at ch t he t hum b im pressionsappeanng on t he writ t en st at em ent filed and t he st at em ent recorded before t he passing of Anit a 2012.11.09 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh t he j udgm ent and decree dat ed 291 975 even if JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document accept ed as t rue I S of no avail Thej udgm entand decree dat ed 201 RegularSecond AppealNo52 of 2008 41 I e 297 1975 st ands vit iat ed as MayaDevi was a m inor andt herefore I egallyincapableof agreeingt o a fam ilyset t lem ent or suHeringa collusive decree givingup her propriet oryright swit hout requisit e from a Guardian Judge No such perm issionhas been 10 0 C I C5 I Z 2 C I c5 vm o Z t l pleadedor est ablished I t would also be necessay t o m ent ion t hat t he st oryof Maya Devi sufferinga coilusive decree in favour of t he appellant sdoes not appealt o reason I t is not denied t hat Badam o MayaDevis m ot her was m urdered Bhagsingh appellantnol and Rat na her husband t ried for t his m urder but were acquit t edMaya Devi could not be expect edt o give up her ent ire propenyt o a person who was accused of t he m urder of her m ot her The argum entt hat t he birt h cenificat e Exl records t he biit h of a girl nam ed Suraj m ukhit o Rat na was considered by t he Court s below and rej ect eclI do not find any error I aw as would necessit at e int erference wit h t hese findings Even ot herwise t his argum ent would have assum ed significanceif t he appellant shad chosen t o rebut Maya Devis oral deposit iont hat duringher childhood she was known as Suraj m ukhi1 t herefore find noreason t o differ wit h t he opinionrecorded byt he Court s below The ot her argum entrelat es t o t he plea t hat Maya Devi has failed t o est ablish t hat she is t he daught erof Rat na Bot h t he court s below have ret urned concurrent findingst hat Maya Devis m ot her Badam o perform eda Karewa m arriage wit h Rat na aft er t he dem ise of her first husband Shiv Lal The fact t hat Maya Devi was born t o Badam o from her m arriagewit h Rat na is corroborat ed by sufficient Anit a 2012.11.09 11: 29 evidence True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh E P8 is a st at em ent dat ed 06 102004 m ade by Ram JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chander appeliantno2 in an earlier suit t it led as Maya Devi V 202 RegularSecond AppealNo2 of 2008 12 e Ram Chander wherein Ram Chander has deposed t hat Shiv Lal died prior t o his birt h and Maya Devi was born when Ram Chander m 1 0 C I C5 I Z C I a5 7 t l was 20122years old t hus clearlyadm it t ingt hat MayaDevi was aft er t he dem ise of Shiv Lal EP9 is a order dat ed 11 1 1971 passedby t he Judicial Magist rat eI st Class Hissar com m it t ingBhag Chandappellantnol and Rat na t o t he Sessions Court for t rial of t he m urder of Badam o I n t hese proceedings Maya Devi I S clearly referred t o as t he daught erof Badam oOW1 Surat Singh adm it t ed t hat aft er t he dem ise of her husband Shiv LaI Rat na Badam o m arried He also adm it t ed t hat Shiv Lal had died issueless This wit ness t herefore adm it s by inference t hat Maya Devi was t he daught erof Rat na and Badam o To sim ilar effect is t he st at em ent of one Azad Singh ExP7 recorded in a priorint eopart iesdisput ele docum ent s Ex P8 and Ex9 when read wit h t he oral evidence and t he adm issions m ade by t he defendant s clearly est ablish t hat Maya Devi was born out of t he wedlock of Rat na and Badam o The court s below t herefore right lyheld t hat MayaDevi was t he daught erof Badam o from her Karewa m arriagewit h Rat na and t hat on t he dat e of passingof t he decree dat ed 297 1975 she was a m inor The subm ission rnade by counsel for t he appeliant st hat if EPl is t o be accept ed as correct MayaDevi would be 16 years old and not 12 years as assert ed by her t he plaint even if accept edt rue would not m ake any difference t o t he final out com e of t he appealas Maya Devi would st ill be a m inor I n view of what has been st at ed hereinabove as t he Anit a 2012.11.09 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh findingsrelat ingt o t he dat e of birt h and parent ageof Maya Deviare purefindingof fact t hat do not suffer from any error of I aw m uch I ess JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 203 1 4 RegularSecond AppealNo52 of 2008 e5 43 a as would raise a subst ant ial quest ionof I aw t he concurrentfindingsof fact recorded by t he court s below are affirm ed The I ast quest ionof I aw relat es t o a plea t hat t he suit was barredby I im it at ion as it was filed 22 years aft er t he j udgm entand decreedat ed 29 1975 m erit s out rightrej ect ion Apart from t he t hat Maya Devi was a m inor and denies knowledgeof t he decree fraud vit iat es every act As fraud has been est ablished t he suit was right lyheld t o have been filed wit hin I im it at ion I n view of what has been st at ed hereinabove as t he quest ionsfram ed by t he counsel for t he appellant sdo not raise any subst ant ial of I aw t he concurrent findingsof fact recorded by t he court s below do not call for any int erference and t herefore affirm ecl The appealis dism issed wit h nc order as t o 1 r 0 0 I C5 I Z r a5 cost s 2009 RAJI VE BHALLAI JUDGE V Z C1 r 8 421 4e V Olvlo 01 a Anit a 2012.11.09 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document