The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely filing of suits and the requirement to prove fraud or misrepresentation in property disputes.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This order shall dispose of two cross appeals namely, R.S.A. No. 1633 of 1982 (for brevity, 1st case) and R.S.A. No. 759 of 1982 (for brevity, IInd case). Both the appeals are the result of cross suits filed by the parties against one and another. The Trial Court has dismissed both the suits with costs vide its judgment dated 3.10.1980 and the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra has further dismissed the appeals vide his judgment and decree dated 6.2.1982. Feling aggrieved, the parlies have approached this Court by filing the appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for brevity, the Code). Appeal filed by Rajni Bala; [Ist case]

2. The appeal filed by Smt. Rajni i.e. R.S.A. No. 1633 of 1982 has arisen from Civil Suit No. 101 of 1977. Smt. Rajni is widow of one Hardutt. She filed Civil Suit No. 101 of 1977 on 4.4.1977 against Smt. Roshni widow of Mohinder Singh son of Mann Singh and Smt. Kanti wife of Man Singh son of Datta Ram seeking a declaration to the effect that she was exclusive owner of land measuring 255 kanals 13 marlas, situated at village Chandana. She claimed that Smt, Roshni and Smt. Kanti have no concern with the land which is fully described in para 1 of the plaint. She has also asserted that her husband Hardutt died in 1952 and being widow and the sole legal heir, she succeeded to his estate which included the suit land. By operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , she became its absolute owner. The suit land was allotted to her after consolidation in lieu of the old land held by her.

3. It is further alleged that the husband of Roshni, Mohinder Singh and husband of Smt. Kanti, Man Singh were collaterals of Hardutt, the deceased husband of Rami. Mohinder Singh and Man Singh filed a civil suit for a declaration on 16.4.1957 in the Civil Court at Kaithal alleging that Smt. Rajni had performed a Kareva marriage with Man Singh as a result of which she had forfeited all her rights and interests in the property of her deceased husband Hardutt. The suit was dismissed on 17.2.1958. It is averred that on the same day i.e. 17.2.1958, Man Singh alleged to have got a gift deed executed (Ex.D-3) fraudulently from her in favour of his son Mohinder Singh, who is the husband of Smt. Roshni. It was further alleged that Smt. Rajni had adopted Mohinder Singh as her son. The gift deed was said to have been executed in lieu of the services rendered by Mohinder Singh to Smt. Rajni. The gift deed dated 17.2.1958 has been challenged on the ground of fraud and therefore, it is illegal and void. It has further been asserted that the land has been in possession of Rajni. According to further averments, Rajni came to know about the execution of the gift deed in the year 1972 when she obtained copies of the revenue records. Thereafter, she filed Civil Suit No. 1253 of 1972 on 13.7.1972 against Mohinder Singh in the civil Court at Kaithal for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the averments made in the suit plaintiff-appellant Smt. Rajni had alleged in the plaint (Ex.D-12) that according to the family settlement dated 15.6.1969 Mohinder admitted her to be owner of 1/2 share of the suit land and delivered her possession thereof. As mutation could not be entered, Mohinder Singh has been trying to take forcible possession. Mohinder Singh filed a written statement (Ex.D2) admitting her whole claim and a decree (Ex.D7) was passed in her favour declaring her owner of the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share. She has claimed in the suit that in fact even the aforementioned decree was obtained fraudulently and was liable to be set-aside.

4. Mohinder Singh died in 1975 and was survived by his wife Smt. Roshni, his mother Kanti defendant-respondent No. 1 and a minor daughter Vidya. Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of defendant-respondents Roshni and Smt, Kanti defendant-respondent No. 2. In the alternative, it is claimed that if the adoptio