RAM KUMAR Vs. RAMESHWAR LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration challenging the consent decree dated 20.1.1984 was dismissed.

(2.) Hira Lal suffered a consent decree in favour of the defendants, sons of his cousin Kundan Lal. The said Hira Lal was issueless. It is the case of the plaintiff that Kundan Lal had 10 sons. It was agreed by the plaintiff -Hira Lal to suffer decree in favour of all the 10 sons of Kundan Lal, whereas the decree was suffered in favour of only two sons of Kundan Lal to the exclusion of the remaining 8 sons. The said suit filed by Hira Lal has been dismissed by both the Courts below, holding that the decree suffered by Hira Lal on 20.1.1984 is not an act of fraud or misrepresentation. The suit challenging the said decree was filed on 4.3.1993. Though the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it is beyond the period of limitation but the learned first Appellate Court has reversed the said finding.

(3.) Both the Courts have recorded a finding that the decree is not a result of fraud or misrepresentation on the basis of the statement of DW6 Rajender Prasad, Advocate, engaged by Hira Lal to appear in the suit in which Hira Lal has suffered a decree. He has deposed that the statement was read over to the plaintiff herein and after understanding and admitting the same to be correct, the plaintiff has affixed his thumb impressions. The witness has identified the plaintiff as well.