CHATRU Vs. ANGREJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cultivating the land falling to their share. Suit was filed on the ground that husband of plaintiff No. 1, namely, Kidara was owner of the suit land. On his demise, plaintiffs succeeded to the property left by Kidara. They averred that two months prior to the filing of the suit, they obtained copy of the Jamabandi and then they came to know that the defendants had got the suit land transferred in their names on the basis of a decree passed in Civil Suit No. 120/1 of 1974, decided on 19.8.1974. Plaintiffs have asserted that they never suffered any decree nor they appeared in any Court nor engaged any counsel. They further asserted that the defendants have played a fraud upon them.

(3.) TRIAL Court dismissed the suit by saying that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case but on appeal, the first Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit. The first Appellate Court has in detail pointed out the suspicious circumstances surrounding the passing of the decree alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade this Court as to how the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court in this regard is erroneous. In my view, on the basis of evidence brought on record, the first Appellate Court has rightly found that the plaintiffs never suffered decree but it was the defendants who, taking advantage of plaintiff No. 1 being widow and other plaintiffs being minors, played fraud upon them and obtained decree. Consequently, no interference is called for in second appeal. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.