Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Maro Devi (Deceased) Through Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alka Sarin, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003 and by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that she was owner in possession of the suit property measuring 8 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Laharpur, Tehsil Jagadhri fully described in the plaint. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent that she was the widow of Shadi Ram, hence, the only sole heir of deceased - Shadi Ram. Shadi Ram is stated to have died on 28.03.1997. It was further the case that during the lifetime of Shadi Ram, the defendant-appellant - Raj Kumar - had by misrepresenting and by fraud got a judgment and decree dated 02.03.1996 in his favour being civil suit no.535-CS of 1995 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Shadi Ram, which was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-respondent. A written statement was filed by the defendant-appellant averring therein that Shadi Ram was his maternal uncle and
Fraud - Fraud has been defined in Section 17 of the Contract Act to mean as Fraud means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his ag....
The court ruled that a plaintiff must establish rights through proper succession reporting and admissible evidence, and findings from criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts.
The central legal point established is the impact of pending revenue proceedings on the grant of permanent injunction and the significance of a revisional court's decision in establishing ownership.
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 court upheld the validity of a consent decree, ruling that the deceased had the authority to alienate property as separate property, and the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud.
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
