RAJ PAL AND OTHERS Vs. CHAMELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-defendants are aggrieved of the judgment and decree rendered by the lower Appellate Court whereby it set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2009 passed by the trial Court whereby the suit of respondent-plaintiff seeking declaration qua setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1994 passed in Civil Suit No.214 of 1994 titled "Raj Pal and another Vs. Chameli" as not binding on the rights of the plaintiff with consequential relief of possession as well as permanent injunction, had been decreed.

(2.) Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C.B. Goel, Ms. Neeti Gupta and Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocates submitted that the respondent-plaintiff chose to file the suit on 19.07.2007 on the ground that she was owner in possession of the suit land since she was married in village Tandwal which was far away from village Bhadson where the property is located, it was very difficult for her to cultivate and thus, given the land on lease in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they had been paying the lease money. She could never think that the defendants could get the transfer of land in their favour and by obtaining the certified copies of jamabandi in September, 2006, she acquired the knowledge of judgment and decree dated 19.02.1994, thus, filed the aforementioned suit.

(3.) He submitted that the ingredients of fraud as envisaged under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC are not only conspicuously absent but even not proved. The respondent-plaintiff also alleged that there was no family settlement between her and defendant Nos.1 and 2. On the basis of decree even mutation No.1156 was entered. The ground for challenging the aforementioned decree had been that there was no family settlement/arrangement. She did not engage any counsel, sign the written statement or power of attorney to get her statement recorded in the Court, much less, never appeared in Court. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 played fraud having impersonating some other lady in order to cause wrongful loss. The respondent-plaintiff being an illiterate lady did not know how to put his signatures and she was only used to put her thumb impression and there was no occasion for her to transfer the land in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2.