The legal point established is the rejection of the defendant's claim as the lawful wife in a previous judgment and the restoration of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J. (Oral) - This common order of mine shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals since common questions of law and facts are involved in the same.

2. Plaintiff-appellant has assailed concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below whereby suit bearing No. 513 of 2009 seeking declaration that she is co-owner in joint possession of the land described in the plaint on the demise of her husband-Baldev Singh with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 07.3.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), SBS Nagar whereas the counter claim of the defendant-respondent has been decreed and affirmed in appeal by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.3.2015.

3. Plaintiff instituted the suit on the premise that she was lawfully wedded wife of said Baldev Singh, who owned the land fully described in the plaint. Baldev Singh was earlier married to the defendant-Baljeet Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur and their marriage was dissolved by the decree of divorce dated 28.3.1984. After that defendant-Baljeet Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur filed a suit for declaration at Nawanshahr claiming herself to be the wife of Baldev Singh and challenged the divorce dated 28.3.1984. Said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.3.1985. Baldev Singh thereafter married the plaintiff, which was consummated but the defendant started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land stating that she had got sanctioned mutation in her favour regarding the suit land at the back of the plaintiff.

4. Upon notice, defendant-respondent filed written statement and denied the exclusive right of the plaintiff. She (defendant) came up with the plea that the plaintiff suppressed the material facts from the Court and she was legally wedded wife of Baldev Singh and the divorce granted by way of decree of divorce was not applicable. Defendant averred that she was the only wife and the plaintiff had not been in possession as joint owner as alleged.

5. From the pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as consequential relief, as prayed for?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court?OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is barred by his act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD

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

6. Whether the principle of estoppel, acquiescence, latches applies to the present suit?OPD

6-A. Whether the counter claimant is the joint owner in possession of land measuring 45K-19Mls, as detailed in the head note of the counter claim?OPCC.

7. Relief."

6. The plaintiff in support of her pleadings examined PW2 Harmesh Lal and herself as PW1 besides bringing on record numerous documents i.e Ration Card, Voter Card, Aadhar Card, Bank Pass book, Passport, copy of judgment and decree dated 13.3.1985 as Ex.P13 & Ex.P14 and copy of divorce deed as Ex.P15 apart from the photographs of the marriage to prove that Baldev Singh was her husband.

7. On the other hand, defendants also tendered certain documents on record besides stepping up in the witness box as DW1.

8. On the basis of preponderance of evidence, the trial court while decreeing the counter claim of the defendant-respondent dismissed the suit The appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have gravely erred while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, for, the judgment & decree dated 13.3.1985 vide which the suit filed by the defendant was dismissed, was not only pertaining to the challenge being laid to the decree of divorce but also related to declaratio