The main legal point established is that fraud vitiates every act, and the court affirmed the findings that the judgment and decree were obtained by perpetuating fraud and that Maya Devi was a minor at the time, leading to the suit being decreed and the appeal dismissed.

Rajive Bhalla, J. - The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 23.12.2006 and 19.12.2007, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi and the Additional District Judge, Hissar, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal.

2. Maya Devi, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of land measuring 72 kanals situated in village Sisar, Tehsil Hansi on the plea that the collusive decree dated 29.07.1975, allegedly suffered by her in Civil Suit No. 328-C of 1975, is a nullity as it is vitiated by fraud. She denied any family settlement, alleged her impersonation by the appellants and pleaded that as she was a minor aged 12 years on the date of the collusive decree she- could not make a statement or suffer a decree.

3-4. The appellants contested the suit and raised various preliminary objections. On merits, they denied the allegations of fraud and impersonation , denied the fact that Maya Devi was 12 years old on the date of the decree and asserted that Maya Devi had suffered a collusive decree vide Judgment and decree dated 29.07.1975 pursuant to a family settlement and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues :

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as well as possession and injunction with respect to the disputed land on the grounds so mentioned in the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPP

4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present ? OPD

6. Relief."

After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1975 by holding that it was a nullity as on the date, of the judgment and decree, Maya Devi was a minor. It was also held that the impugned judgment and decree was obtained by perpetuating a fraud.

6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the appellants filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Hissar, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

7. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants filed a suit that they were owners of the suit land, pursuant to a family settlement. Maya Devi filed a written statement Ex.D2 admitting their claim. She also made a statement Ex.D3 accepting the averments in the suit. As a result a decree dated 29.07.1975 was passed in favour of the appellants. The suit filed by Maya Devi alleging that this decree was obtained by fraud should have been dismissed as the respondent has failed to adduce any evidence, to establish her plea that this decree was obtained by perpetuating fraud. The finding recorded by the courts below that the decree dated 29.07.1975 is a nullity as Maya Devi was 12 years old on 29.07.1975 is based upon misreading of the evidence, particularly the birth certificate Ex.P1. The birth certificate relates to and records the birth of a girl named Surajmukhi to one Ratna son of Bhala. The respondent has failed to adduce any evidence, other than her self-serving statement, that she was known as Surajmukhi or that she is the daughter of Ratna. Maya Devi has failed to produce any other relative or any of the other children of Ratna from his other wife to establish that she was known as Surajmukhi during her childhood. The courts below however, proceeded to rely upon Maya Devis uncorroborated statement to hold that she was known as Surajmukhi during her childhood. It is further urged that in the plaint, Maya Devi alleges that she was 12 years old on 29.07.1975 whereas if the entries in the birth certificate are accepted as true, she would be 16 years old on 29.07.1975. It is, therefore, argued that as the birth certificate belies the averments, in the plaint as to age, the cour