AMAR SINGH Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession in terms of pleading that plaintiff No.1 was the owner of land measuring 3 K being 3/16th share of total land measuring 16 K situated at village Kalal Majra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Declaration was sought in terms of impugning judgment and decree dated 6.6.1995 passed in civil suit No.539 of 1995 titled as 'Amar Singh and others v. Suresh Kumar' passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra stating the same to be illegal, null and void on the ground of fraud. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs enjoyed a relationship of trust and faith with the defendants and in the year 1995, the defendants had approached plaintiff No.1 regarding taking of suit land on lease for a term of six years commencing from June 1995 to June 2001. In this regard, lease money of Rs.18,000/- was paid by the defendants in advance and it was asserted that since the defendants wanted to save the stamp and registration expenses, they coerced plaintiff No.1 for going to the Sub Registrar. It was further pleaded that plaintiff No.1 was brought to the Court complex on 3.6.1995 under the influence of liquor whereupon his signatures were obtained on some written as also blank papers. It was further pleaded that plaintiff No.1 was even taken inside a Court room accompanied by an Advocate and his signatures were again obtained on certain papers. The plaintiffs asserted that he never had any doubt as regards the intentions of the defendants and it was only upon expiry of the lease period from July 2001 when he asked the defendants to hand over possession back to him that the defendants kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff asserted that it was in December 2001 that the defendants openly declared that they have become owners of the suit land. Accordingly, the case set up by the plaintiffs was that the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1995 was a result of fraud and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that the version of a family settlement having been entered into, as set up in the earlier suit, was totally false as the defendants are complete strangers to the family of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further asserted that since the defendants did not have any pre-existing right or interest in the suit property and since the impugned decree had also not been registered, as such, no right had come to vest with the defendants as regards the suit land on the basis of such impugned decree. The consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and a decree for possession was also prayed for directing the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit land to them.

(2.) THE defendants contested the suit in terms of filing a written statement stating that the impugned judgment and decree was legal, valid and the same was binding on the plaintiffs. It was stated that plaintiff No.1 had himself appeared in the Court in the previous suit, had engaged a counsel and even filed a written statement admitting the case of the plaintiffs (in the previous suit) on account of his free will and consent and without any undue influence. It was further stated that the registration of the impugned judgment and decree was required as per law.

(3.) THE trial Court vide judgment dated 27.5.2009 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs in terms of returning a finding that the plea of fraud stood not proved. Still further, the trial Court held that the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1995 could not be set aside only on the ground of its non-registration. It was further held by the trial Court that the limitation to file the suit was three years from the date of passing of the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.1995 and since the present suit had been instituted on 21.3.2002, as such, the same was barred by time. It may, however, be noticed that a specific finding was recorded by the trial Court to the effect that the plaintiff was not a close relative of the defendants, and in this regard, the trial Court had specifically referred to the testimony of defendant No.3, namely, Jai Singh who had clearly admitted that his mother and the mother of plaintiff No.1 were not real sisters but they have assumed themselves to be the sisters on the basis of belonging to the same Gotra.