IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.12.2025 Ram Sarup through his LRs ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Bharpai through her LR ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment of reversal dated 13.08.2008 passed by the first Appellate Court; whereby Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein has been allowed, and suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking declaration as owner in possession of the suit property as described in the plaint; and a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1996 passed by the learned additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani in Civil Suit No. 209 of 1996 titled as Ram Sarup vs. Bharpai in respect of the suit land declaring the defendant as owner in possession of the suit land; and the mutation No. 1016 dated 29.06.1996 on the basis of the aforesaid judgment and decree, are illegal, null and void being fraudulent; and for permanent injunction (prohibitory)

restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land.

3. The facts as pleaded in the plaint were that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land described in the plaint; that the appellant/defendant has no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit property; that the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1996 was obtained by the defendant by fraudulent means; and the mutation No. 1016 dated 29.06.1996 is against law, facts and fraudulent and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside and the plaintiff is liable to be incorporated as owner in possession of the land in dispute in place of the defendant in the revenue record.

4. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that her mother Lachmi was owner in possession of the land in dispute which was her ancestral property inherited from her forefather. Upon the death of Lachmi, Plaintiff and her 2 sisters inherited the land in equal shares; and Plaintiff was duly incorporated as owner in possession of 1/6th share. Defendant was also co-owner in the land in dispute to the extent of 1/6th share. Defendant and his 2 brothers had been cultivating the share of the plaintiff and her sisters. Defendant had misrepresented to the plaintiff that her thumb impressions are required for executing the Power of Attorney in respect of the suit land. It was pleaded that defendant had thus, fraudulently obtained various thumb impressions of plaintiff on some documents on 05.06.1996. When the plaintiff had applied for copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 as the plaintiff intended to sell the land, plaintiff had come to know about the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1996. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 12.03.2001 on the ground defendant had played fraud and undue influence on the plaintiff and obtained her thumb impressions by misrepresenting facts.

5. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2003 holding the same to be time barred; and on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had played fraud upon her. However, the Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.2008 holding that the decree dated 05.06.1996 was obtained by playing fraud and the same is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Learned First Appellate Court has also held that the suit was filed within limitation. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that first and foremost, the Civil Suit filed by the respondent