BALRAJ AND OTHERS Vs. ROOPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for declaration filed by successors-in-interest of Sawan alias Shawnu to claim 160/3152 share in land measuring 157 kanal 12 marlas by directing challenge against judgment and decree passed in civil Suit No. 1091 of 1989 dated 07.11.1989 purported to be suffered by Sawan alias Shawnu on the premise that the judgment and decree is the result of fraud and misrepresentation, was dismissed by the trial Court on 26.04.2014 and the appeal preferred by unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants did not find favour with the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad whereby findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants would urge that civil suit No. 1091 of 1989 was instituted on 07.11.1989, written statement admitting claim of the plaintiffs therein (respondents herein) was filed on the same day. Statement was also recorded on the same very day and suit was decreed on 07.11.1989, sufficient to substantiate plea of the appellants that the entire proceedings that culminated in judgment and decree dated 07.11.1989 are the result of fraud and misrepresentation. Another submission made by counsel is that Roopa, one of the defendants appeared in the witness box and in his cross examination, he had stated that there was no family settlement between the parties. It is vehemently argued that as right in immovable property valuing more than Rs.100.00 was created for the first time in favour of Roopa and others, decree dated 07.11.1989 cannot be held good for want of registration.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the paper book particularly the judgments impugned.