IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1108-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 JARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER . . . .APPELLANTS Vs.

BALWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellants.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Plaintiffs are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Plaintiffs sought declaration to the effect that they along with defendant No.2 are owners in possession of the suit land and that judgment & decree dated 09.02.2007 passed in an earlier litigation was null and void and the result of fraud. They further sought declaration that sale deed dated 08.03.2011 was also null and void and not binding upon their legal rights. They further prayed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein)

from interfering in their possession or to dispossess them.

2. Defendant No.1 opposed the claim of the plaintiffs. One of the grounds raised by him was that matter in controversy had already been decided vide judgment dated 09.02.2007 and even the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Appellate Court and the further appeal filed before this High Court was also dismissed.

3. After framing issues and taking evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 23.01.2019. The appeal filed by two of the plaintiffs against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 23.02.2022, thus endorsing the findings of the trial Court.

4. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants before Court is that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below.

5. After hearing ld. counsel for the appellants at length and appraising of the paper-book, this Court does not find any merit. It will be relevant to reproduce observations made by the First Appellate Court regarding the matter in controversy: -

“21. By virtue of present suit, appellants-plaintiffs crave for decree, dated 09.02.2007, passed by the court of the then Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patti, to be declared as nullity on the ground of fraud. The present suit has been filed on 01.06.2013. Whereas not only the same is time barred on the very face of it, as appellants-plaintiffs themselves being party to judgment and decree dated 09.02.2007 now seek declaration about the said judgment being result of fraud, appellants-plaintiffs, very conveniently, have failed to plead that the first appeal, filed by them against judgment and decree dated 09.02.2007, has been dismissed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Tarn, vide judgment dated 07.08.2009 and the RSA filed by appellants-plaintiffs No.1 and 2 has been dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, vide judgment dated 26.09.2011, thereby, upholding the agreement to sell, dated 06.12.2003, purported to have been executed by the father of appellants-plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1. Not only the said concealment of the judgments passed by First Appellate Court and Hon'ble High Court is deliberate omission on the part of appellants-plaintiffs, the fact that appellants-plaintiffs have the cheek to still assert their right, title and interest over the suit property and to challenge sale deed dated 08.03.2011, executed through the Executing court, in favour of respondent-defendant No.1 speaks volumes of the adamant stand of appellants-plaintiffs, who refuse to accept the finality of judgment against them and have tried to reopen the matter, which has already been decided conclusively between the parties.

22. In this backdrop, therefore, now any attempt on the part of appellants- plaintiffs to produce additional evidence in support of their contention that the agreement to sell, dated 06.12.2013, executed by their father Jugraj Singh is not valid agreement, on what so ever ground being taken by appellants- plaintiffs, cannot be en