DARSHAN SINGH Vs. KULWANT KAUR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendantappellant who is aggrieved against the declaration given by the Courts below wherein the award dated 13.09.2003(Exhibit P1) passed in Civil Suit No.67 of 2002 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal was rendered as illegal, null and void in the eyes of law and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-respondents along with consequent mutation No.1766 (Exhibit P2). The decree of possession of the land was also passed in favour of the plaintiffrespondents and against the defendant-appellant who were directed to deliver the possession within two months from the date of passing of judgment and decree and they were further restrained from transferring/alienating the land in favour of anyone else vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 & 2 are daughters of Baja Singh who was the brother of defendants and owner in possession of 8 kanals of land situated in the revenue estate of Bilona, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

(2.) Baja Singh had no son and his two daughters, i.e., plaintiffrespondent Nos.1 & 2 were married in the year 1968 and 1976 respectively and Baja Singh was living in the village and dependent upon the defendant-appellant. The allegations of the plaintiff-respondents is that taking benefit of the old age of their father, Baja Singh who was approximately 80 years old and totally blind, defendant-appellant filed Civil Suit No.67 of 2002 and got the same transferred to the permanent and continuous Lok Adalat, Karnal and by way of compromise, agricultural land measuring 8 kanals was got transferred in the name of the defendant-appellant on the ground of exchange in lieu of the property taken by the defendant-appellant from Baja Singh. In the exchange, it was alleged that some bara/house situated in Village Rattak was shown to have been given to Baja Singh, but in fact, no such plot or house was ever given to Baja Singh in favour of that exchange of the said agricultural land and neither such plot/house ever existed in the name of the defendantappellant at Village Rattak. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the defendant-appellant had defrauded Baja Singh and on the basis of the said award, mutation No.1766 dated 08.12.2004 had also been entered in their favour. After the death of Baja Singh on 09.11.2004, when the plaintiff-respondents came to the village to collect the batai of their agricultural land of their father, they were denied the same by the defendant-appellant and they found that the land had been got transferred by the defendantappellant by the said fraud. The defendant-appellant took various pleas in his separate written statement including the maintainability of the suit and it being time barred and that the plaintiffs were restrained by their act in filing the suit as they had not come to the Court with clean hands etc. and on merits alleged that the allegations regarding blindness of Baja Singh was false and frivolous and Baja Singh was acquainted with the language of Punjabi and English and he had signed in English on the said compromise and was also aware of the said compromise and exchange which was orally effected in the year 2000 and Baja Singh was given possession of the property which he got in lieu of the suit property. It was also alleged in the written statement that the plaintiffs were present and their father-Baja Singh had consulted the plaintiffs and there was nothing to be kept secret about the exchange. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the exchange was effected in the Lok Adalat which could not be challenged in any Court of law under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Separate written statement was filed by defendant No.2, Kulwant Singh, who, though contesting the plaint, also admitted that Baja Singh was aware that there was no house or plot/bara situated at Village Rattak and whatever was tutored by the counsel, the same was said by Baja Singh before the Permanent Lok Adalat without any type of pressure, coersion and on his free will due to the close relation between each other and thus submitted that the award was rightly passed.

(3.) Replication was also filed denying the said allegations alleging that the suit was maintainable. On the basis of the said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1.Whether the decree/award dated 13.9.03 passed in civil suit No.67/02 from Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Karnal being illegal, null and void, inoperative, ineffective and is a result of fraud and forgery and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants permanently from alienating/transferring/mortgaging the suit land in any manner OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable OPD 4.Whether the suit is hopelessly time barred OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct OPD 6.Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands OPD 7.Whether the plaint is neither signed nor verified in accordance with law OPD 8.Whether the suit has been filed on false and frivolous grounds OPD 9.Whether the suit is vague and does not disclose any cause of action against the defendants OPD 10.Whether the suit is misuse of the process of court OPD 11.Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 OPD 12.Relief.