IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.12.2025 Neetu Kanwar @ Nitu Singh … Appellant Versus Bhim Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is plaintiff’s appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2025, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Fazilka, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2018, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Abohar, vide which the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff (Neetu Kanwar) is the daughter of one Jaikarni Singh. Jaikarni Singh, Bhim Singh (defendant No.1) and Jaskaran Singh were three sons of one Jaimal Singh. A decree dated 13.02.1990 was passed in a civil suit titled as ‘Bhim Singh v. Jaikarni Singh. The said suit was filed by Bhim Singh (brother of Jaikarni Singh) on the basis of a family settlement arrived at between Jaikarni Singh and Bhim Singh.

4. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the said decree dated 13.02.1990 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, 2^nd Class, Fazilka, vide which defendant No.1 (Bhim Singh) was declared to be the owner in possession of the suit land measuring 72 kanals (fully described in the plaint), situated in the revenue estate of Village Amarpura, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), was illegal, null and void, the same having been obtained by fraud and that the same was not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land and from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the same was also sought.

5. It was averred that Jaikarni Singh had expired on 30.04.2001 leaving behind the plaintiff, defendants No.2 & 3 as his legal heirs. Another legal heir Bhupinder Singh had expired on 13.07.2006. Defendant No.1 being a clever person, with a malafide intention, obtained a decree dated 13.02.1990 in a civil suit titled “Bhim Singh v. Jaikarni Singh, which had been obtained by fraud and was also not registered. It was averred that defendant No.1 had no concern with the suit land and, therefore, no family settlement could have been arrived at. It was averred that the decree was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. It was averred that Jaikarni Singh had never engaged any counsel and had not appeared in the Court nor had filed any written statement. It was also averred that the suit land was ancestral/

coparcenary property.

6. The suit was opposed by defendant No.1. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections were raised. It was averred that the plaintiff had filed the suit at the instance of her brother Parven Singh (defendant No.2) and mother Usha Rani (defendant No.3) with a motive to harass the answering defendant. It was averred that the suit was hopelessly time barred. Other preliminary objections as regards maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel etc. were raised. It was also averred that Jaikarni Singh and Jaskaran Singh had expired. After the decree having been passed, Jaskaran Singh had filed a civil suit in the civil Court at Abohar challenging the decree dated 13.02.1990, in which Jaikarni Singh was also impleaded. Jaikarni Singh duly appeared and admitted that he had suffered the decree in question in favour of defendant No.1. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Abohar.

6.1 After this, once again, Bhupinder Singh (elder brother of the plaintiff) instituted another civil suit in the Civil Court at Abohar again challenging the decree in question and the said suit was also dismissed. In that suit, defendants No.