PRITAM SINGH Vs. BOHTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, against dismissal of her suit by the trial Court, was accepted and suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession was decreed.

(2.) According to the averments made in the suit, one Ram Rikh was owner in possession of the land measuring 523 Kanals 14 Marlas, as detailed in the plaint. After his death, the land in dispute was inherited by his legal heirs and the plaintiff-respondent became owner of the land owned by him, to the extent of 1/8th share. She got the same cultivated through Mani Ram, who used to cultivate the land of her share, on her behalf, and used to pay rent thereof by way of sharing the food grains. She had full confidence in said Mani Ram because of her close relationship with him. As per further averments, the plaintiffrespondent was brought to Kaithal by defendant No.1 Mani Ram on the pretext that, her share is being separated so that no dispute is raised later-on and her thumb impressions were obtained giving an impression that the same were being taken for the purpose of partition of her share. However later-on, at the time of harvesting the Kharif crop in the year 1980, when she went to the village of Mani Ram, he refused to pay the rent and stated that she was no more owner of the land in dispute and then she came to know that false and frivolous decree has been obtained by the defendants by committing a fraud upon her. She came to know that the papers, on which she had put her thumb impressions, were the written statement in Civil Suit No.703 of 1974. No summons were issued to her and the copy of the plaint was never read over to her and even she never engaged any counsel in the Civil Suit. Thus, according to the plaintiff-respondent her thumb impressions were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, as she remained under the impression that her share was being separated. It was further alleged, that in spite of the repeated requests, the defendants refused to hand over possession of the land in dispute to her and to accept her title over the land in dispute. Thus, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(3.) A joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No.1 to 4. It was admitted that Ram Rikh was owner of the land in dispute and after his death, the plaintiff-respondent became owner of the land owned by him to the extent of 1/8th share being his daughter. However, the defendants stated that above said Ram Rikh was not in possession of the land in dispute. They denied the fact that the plaintiff used to collect rent regarding the land in dispute from Mani Ram or he used to cultivate the share of plaintiff as a lessee. It was further alleged that the details regarding para No.5 of the plaint were vague and wrong. The plaintiff had put her thumb impressions on the written statement and the statement was made in the Court knowing fully well the contents of the plaint and no misrepresentation was made to her.