RANJIT SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2001, passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed, judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for possession challenging the legality of the earlier judgment and decree dated 18.9.1986 on the ground that the same was based on mis-representation, inasmuch as his signatures were obtained on blank papers and on the said blank papers bearing his signatures admission written statement was prepared in the previous suit. The suit was contested by the defendants and it was alleged that the present plaintiff himself had filed the written statement admitting the claim of the present defendant and that the civil court decree was perfectly legal and valid. It was further alleged that the decree was based on family settlement arrived at between the parties in 1985.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, no case for interfering with the judgment of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge is made out, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Nothing has come on the record to show that the previous civil Court decree was based on mis-representation except the bald testimony of the plaintiff that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and on said blank papers his admission written statement was prepared. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge, after considering the evidence found it as a fact that the previous civil court decree was legal and valid and was not result of any mis-representation. This finding is a finding of fact based on evidence led by the parties and does not call for any interference by this court in the present Regular Second Appeal. Furthermore, since the earlier civil court decree was based on alleged family settlement between the parties, in my opinion, said civil court decree also did not require registration. Even otherwise, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.