(1.) DEFENDANT No. 3 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 14.1.2005, whereby mutation No. 3510 with regard to inheritance of the share of Smt. Jangir Kaur in favour of Smt. Choto was declared null and void and the decree dated 14.12.1991 in a suit filed by Jaswant Singh and his son Gobinder Singh (the present, appellant) against Choto and the decree dated 19.5.1992 suffered by Jaspal Kaur in favour of the present appellant was set aside holding that the same was not binding on Jaspal Kaur plaintiff.
(2.) ONE Jasmer Singh, who died on 10.10.1984 had two wives, namely, Partap Kaur and Jangir Kaur. Said Jasmer Singh had son Jaswant Singh and daughter Choto out of his wedlock with Partap Kaur and daughter Jaspal Kaur out of his wedlock with Jangir Kaur. There was a settlement wherein Jasmer Singh, Partap Kaur, Jangir Kaur and Jaswant Singh got 1/4th share each in the land measuring 676 kanals 12 marlas. Such facts are not disputed by any of the parties at this stage.
(3.) BEFORE this Court, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the first Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the statement of DW2 Param Pal Singh, Advocate, who has categorically deposed that the plaintiff was the same woman, who appeared before the Court, when she made statement to suffer decree in favour of the appellant on 6.5.1992. Once, the identity of the plaintiff is established, the finding recorded that the decree is actuated by fraud and misrepresentation is not tenable. It was also argued that the plaintiff has suffered a decree on 25.1.1992 in favour of her brother Nachhattar Singh in respect of the land inherited from her maternal side situated at village Tamkot and also suffered a decree in respect of the land inherited by her from paternal side on 19.5.1992. Therefore, the conduct of the plaintiff in suffering the consent decree cannot be said to be an act of fraud or misrepresentation.