ANOOP KAUR Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Singh, the present respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the land in dispute and that the decree dated December 23, 1987 in Civil Suit No. 620 which was instituted on December 15, 1987 was null and void as it was the result of fraud and mis-representation. He further prayed that defendants be restrained from taking advantage of the aforesaid decree. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court. Hari Singh filed an appeal. It was allowed. His suit was decreed. The defendants have, thus, filed the present second appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) Hari Singh, the plaintiff is unmarried. He has weak eye-sight. He used to live with his nephew (brother's son, Balbir Singh). In October 1987, Balbir Singh fell ill. In December 1987, his condition became serious. He was under treatment in a private clinic at Tarn Taran in District Amritsar. Amarjit Singh, a relative of Balbir Singh was looking after him. In the last week of December 1987, Amarjit Singh informed the plaintiff, Hari Singh that Balbir Singh was struggling for life and that he had to be operated upon. The Doctor wanted a close relation to given consent for surgery. Consequently, Hari Singh accompanied Amarjit Singh to the Tehsil premises at Sultanpur Lodhi. Amarjit Singh obtained his thumb impression on some papers. Later on, Balbir Singh died. After his death on April 10, 1988, the plaintiff discovered that a decree had been obtained on the basis of his thumb impression and that Balbir Singh had become the owner of the land. When the respondents threatened to take possession of the land forcibly, he filed the civil suit to challenge the judgement and decree. The defendant-appellants contested the suit. They inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff was being looked after by Balbir Singh and because of that, he had given the land to him. The plaintiff had suffered a consent decree. No mis-representation or fraud had been exercised. Consequently, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a replication controverting the stand taken by the defendant-appellants.

(3.) After examination of the matter, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge had reversed the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The defendants have approached this court through the present second appeal.