SMT. JAMNA DEVI Vs. SMT. SARSWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants who aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court whereby it has reversed the decree of learned trial Court, have filed the instant appeal.

(2.) One Sanehru Devi widow of Labha Ram filed civil suit No. 37/91 against Khillo Devi (present respondent) claiming herself to be the sole widow of Labha Ram. Khillo Devi appointed Shakti Chand (appellant No. 2) as power of attorney and on that authority submitted a compromise before the Lok Adalat leading to the passing of a compromise decree Ext.P1 dated 05.02.1994. The compromise decree was subsequently challenged by Khillo Devi on the ground that one day prior to the passing of the compromise decree Khillo Devi has cancelled the power of attorney executed in favour of Shakti Chand vide document Ext. PW2/A dated 04.02.1994. Therefore, he (Shakti Chand) had no lawful authority to effect any compromise on the basis of the power of attorney, which already stood cancelled. Therefore, the decree passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the compromise was against law and having been obtained by fraud, is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned trial Court dismissed the suit, however, the said decree and judgment was reversed by the learned first appellate Court by declaring that decree in civil suit No. 37/91 dated 05.02.1994 of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class-II, Hamirpur was a result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion between both the defendants and resultantly the same was set aside and the defendants were prohibited from claiming any interest under the decree.