SURESH Vs. MARIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was one of the defendants in the suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. He is aggrieved with the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff is owner of 1 /27 share of land measuring 331 kanals 12 marlas and 5/72 share of land measuring 247 kanals 15 marlas and that the judgment and decree dated 6. 5. 1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 283 of 2. 3. 1995 titled as Satpal and Ors. v. Smt. Mariyan and consequent mutation No. 4535 dated 30. 9. 1995 sanctioned on the basis thereof, are based upon fraud and misrepresentation and that the plaintiff is entitled to take over the possession from the defendants.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the plaintiff Smt. Mariyan got instituted a suit wherein she claimed that she is owner of the suit land, to the extent mentioned above, and that the judgment and decree dated 6. 5. 1995 passed in favour of defendants is based upon fraud and obtained by impersonation. It was her case that she never appeared in the aforesaid Court and suffered the admitting statement, leading to the decree of the suit, rather. the defendants, by producing some other lady in the Court, got obtained the said decree in their favour in respect of the suit land. It was further case of the plaintiff that the defendants have no pre-existing right in the suit property. Thus, a prayer was made to set aside the impugned judgment and consequent mutation entered in favour of the defendants and that the defendants be directed to restore the possession of the suit land to her.

(3.) ON the other hand, the stand of the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who, contested the suit, was that the said statement, leading to the decretal of the suit was made by the plaintiff out of her own swept will, pursuant to a family settlement arrived at between the parties. The plea of fraud and impersonation, as raised by the plaintiff, were denied and it was prayed that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim possession of any part of the suit land from them.