RAM KARAN Vs. GUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal, filed by the appellant/defendant, is laid to the judgment and decree dtd. 19/11/1999 passed by the lower appellate Court, vide which the judgment and decree dtd. 28/5/1999 passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, was set aside and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff Gugan was owner in possession of the suit land as described in the plaint. On the suit land, 50 Shisham trees were standing and a tubewell was also installed,

(3.) having electricity connection from HSEB. It is further pleaded in the plaint that on 30/7/1986, the Civil Court passed a judgment and decree in favour of Ram Karan (who was plaintiff in that suit) against Gugan (who was defendant in that suit) and the property in dispute was transferred in the name of Ram Karan. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the judgment and decree is an outcome of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and is liable to be set aside and simultaneously, it is also prayed that the mutation No. 1506, vide which the aforesaid decree was incorporated in the revenue records be also set aside. As per the amended plaint, it was further prayed that a decree of possession be also granted in favour of the defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that Gugan was represented by two advocates, who had filed written statement on his behalf and thereafter, Gugan appeared before the Court and made a statement on oath admitting the contents of the plaint filed in the said suit and thereafter the suit was decreed. The grounds taken in the plaint regarding fruad or misrepresentation were denied and a case was set up that after Ram Karan died on 26/11/1985, mother of the plaintiff performed Karewa marriage with Gugan as per custom in the family and, therefore, subsequently the suit was filed, in which Gugan appeared and admitted the claim and accordingly, the decree was passed in accordance with law, hence, there was no fraud or coercion.