PHULLO Vs. GIALA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiff of the case against reversal.

(2.) The sole plaintiff, Phullo (appellant herein) and the second defendant Surjit Kaur (respondent No.2) are sisters, while the first defendant, Giala Singh (respondent No.1) is their brother. All three are children of Budh Singh. Phullo filed a suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction, asserting her ownership and possession of the suit land as a co-owner with a 1/5th share. She alleged that the first defendant, in collusion with the second defendant, had fraudulently obtained a decree dtd. 28/9/1990 in Civil Suit No. 413 of 1990 from the Court of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sunam, titled Giala Singh v. Surjit Kaur and another. According to the plaintiff, she never consented to the decree, and it was procured through misrepresentation. She claimed that her thumb impressions were taken on blank papers under the pretext of issuing a 'No Objection Certificate' for a bank loan, as she was a co-sharer in the land. These impressions were allegedly misused to obtain the decree. She (Phullo) discovered the fraudulent decree approximately two months before filing the suit, when she approached the Patwari to obtain a copy of the jamabandi. Based on these allegations, she sought appropriate declaratory relief and a permanent injunction.

(3.) In response, both defendants contested the suit, raising preliminary objections. On merits, they maintained that the decree dtd. 28/9/1990 was voluntarily suffered by the plaintiff as part of a family settlement and denied any coercion or fraud. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.