Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT BHAGAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS BULLA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRESENT: MR. MR. PARIT AGGARWAL MR. D.K. TUTEJA, ADVOCATE NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. VIKRAM AGGARWAL THIS IS PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.01.1993 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.05.1992 JUDGE, JHAJJAR, DISTRICT ROHTAK, BEEN DECREED. 2. FOR THE SAKE THEIR ORIGINAL STATUS. 3. THE PLAINTIFF BHAGAL AND THE DEFENDANTS WERE REAL BROTHERS, ALL THREE BEING SONS OF SMT. S PLAINTIFF FILED A SUIT FOR DECLARATION T POSSESSION OF 1/3 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Bhagal (Since Deceased) Through LRs – Appellant
Versus
Bulla (Since Deceased) Through LRs – Respondent
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak allowing the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.1992 passed by the Court of learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Jhajjar, District Rohtak, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff had been decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their original status.
3. The plaintiff Bhagal and the defendants Bulla and Tara Chand were real brothers, all three being sons of Smt. Siriya and Jiya Ram. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of 1/3rd share of land measuring 56 Kanals 02 Marlas (fully described in the plaint) situated in Village Kutani, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’) (at the relevant time, Jhajjar was in District Rohtak)and for a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 23.04.1987 passed in Civil Suit No.273 of 1987 titled as ‘Bulla Vs. Bhagal Etc.’ was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. T
Consent decrees based on family settlements cannot be challenged on procedural grounds but only on proven fraud.
Consent decrees based on family settlements cannot be challenged on incorrect facts unless fraud is proven; registration is not required for such decrees when they involve pre-existing rights.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence in establishing fraud and misrepresentation, the definition of family for the purpose of family settlement, and the requirement of compulsory regist....
Consent decree-Setting aside of-Decree was procured by fraud on ground of Family settlement-Appellant had no antecedent title, claim or interest in the land in dispute-Contention that there was a fam....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
