JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J. - Defendant No.1 of the case is in this appeal against the judgment of reversal. In fact this RSA No.382 of 1992 was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2006 but on the appeal filed by the plaintiff before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter was remanded for fresh decision with the direction to formulate substantial question of law and then to decide it afresh. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before learned trial Court.

2. Data Ram alias Kalu had three sons namely Lalia, Kirpa Ram and Richhpal. Lalia had one son, namely, Ram Lal. Defendant No.1 Siri Bhagwan (appellant before this Court) is the son of Ram Lal. Kirpa Ram on his death left behind his widow, namely, Smt.Murti Devi (plaintiff No.1) and two daughters, namely, Bholi (plaintiff No.2) and Dhan Kaur (defendant No.2). Richhpal had two sons, namely, Khem Chand and Banwari Lal, who are not parties to this litigation.

3. Smt.Murti along with one of her daughter Bholi filed Civil Suit No.315 of 1981 before the learned Sub Judge, Rewari, challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1980 passed in Civil Suit No.638 of 1980 titled " Siri Bhagwan Vs. Smt.Murti Devi ", with regard to 37 kanal 14 marlas of land situated in Village Khera, Alampur detailed in para No.2 of the plaint to declare it as null and void. It was claimed that she (Murti) was the owner in possession of the suit land; that she is a simpleton, illiterate and pardanashin lady and that the impugned decree was obtained by defendant No.1 Siri Bhagwan and his father by playing fraud and misrepresentation. It was alleged that Ram Lal, the father of defendant Siri Bhagwan, had brought her to the Court at Rewari on the pretext that suit land shall be willed away in favour of her two daughters and got filed an admitted written statement and also got recorded her statement on the basis of some alleged family settlement, although no such family settlement ever took place between her (plaintiff Murti Devi) and contesting defendant Siri Bhagwan nor could take place in the absence of her daughters and other sons of her brother-in-law. Besides, defendant No.1 was minor at that time and so there could be no question of family settlement and so, the impugned decree was the result of fraud and misrepresentation.

4. Defendant No.2-Dhan Kaur did not contest the suit and was proceeded ex parte on 21.10.1981. However, defendant No.1 Siri Bhagwan contested the suit and pleaded the impugned decree date 11.11.1980 to be legal and valid, having been voluntarily suffered by plaintiff-Smt.Murti Devi.

5. It will not be out of place to mention here itself that plaintiff No.2-Bholi withdrew her suit by moving an application and making the statement on 22.10.1982 and admitting the correctness of the decree dated 11.11.1980.

6. Following issues were framed for adjudication by the learned trial Court:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land?OPP

2) Whether the decree dated 11.11.80 passed in Civil Court No.638 of 1980 is void as based on mis-representation and as alleged in para No.3 of the plaint?OPP

3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her act and conduct?OPD

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

5) Relief.

7. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by t