RSA No.3176 of 2016 (O&M)

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.3176 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of decision:28.07.2016

Veena Kumari

... Appellant

Vs.

Kharaiti Lal and another

... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:-

Mr. S.K.Aggarwal, Advocate

for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

Appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit

seeking declaration and consequential relief of injunction challenging the

judgment and decree dated 22.09.1988, whereby, she allegedly bequeathed

1/3^rd share in favour of defendants No.1 and 2.

Mr. S.K.Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-plaintiff submits that Ladha Ram was owner of the suit land and

died intestate in the year 1968 and therefore, the entire property measuring

138 kanals 12 marlas was inherited by his legal heirs in equal shares. The

alleged judgment and decree dated 22.09.1988 passed in Civil Suit No.637

of 1988 was an outcome of fraud and mis-representation on having acquired

the knowledge about the factum of transfer of land, the suit was filed by

invoking the provisions of Article 56 of the Limitation Act. Though the trial

Court decreed the suit but the Lower Appellate Court has erroneously and

perversely dismissed the same on the ground that ingredients of fraud and

Savita

2016.08.05 10:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.3176 of 2016 (O&M)

{2}

mis-representation have not been proved, much less, suit was beyond the

limitation. He further submits that one of brothers had rather proved the

case of the plaintiff that there was no judgment and decree. As per the

language of Article 56 of the Limitation Act, limitation would start from the

date of the knowledge of fraud and therefore, the suit instituted in the year

2009 cannot be said to be beyond limitation and thus, prays for setting aside

of the judgment and decree rendered by the Lower Appellate Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the

judgment and decrees of the Courts below.

It would be apt to reproduce Article 56 of the Limitation Act

which read thus:-

Article 56

To declare the forgery

of an instrument issued

or registered.

Three years

When the issue or

registration becomes

known to the plaintiff

No doubt, limitation to seek declaration of instrument is three

years but the averments made in the plaint have to be supported by some

documents. For the sake of brevity, paragraph 3 of the plaint reads thus:-

“That now about two months ago, the defendants stated that

they have succeeded in getting the share of plaintiff transferred

in their favour by virtue of civil court decree passed in suit

no.637 of 1988 decided on 22.9.1988 by the Court of Sh.

Virender Singh the then Senior Sub Judge Rohtak. After that

the plaintiff obtained certified copies of decree and other

Savita

2016.08.05 10:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.3176 of 2016 (O&M)

{3}

revenue record and came to know about passing of impugned

judgment and decree and change of subsequent revenue record

in the name of defendants. The impugned judgment and decree

dated 22.9.1988 and subsequent mutation, and revenue record

in favour of defendants are null and void, illegal, fraudulent

and the plaintiff is not bound by the same on the followign

grounds:-

i)

That the defendants have succeeded in obtaining t he

alleged decree by way of playing fraud. The alleged decree is

the result of mis-representation/impersonation. The plaintiff

neither engaged any counsel nor made any statement in the

Court admitting the alleged claim of present defendants. The

alleged written statement is not bearing the signature of

plaiintiff. When the plaintiff did not appear in the Court, some

other person must have appeared.

ii)

That the story of alleged family settlement referred to in

that plaint is also false. No family settlement has eve