Batti v. Roshan

IN T

Batti Roshan & Other

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

for

Res

Wi

Mr

for MANDEEP PA

1.

of Murari Lal c Courts below w

29.11.1999, dec First Appellate judgment and de Brief Facts

2.

Bri suit for declarat Ex.P3 and Ex.P THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Da

VERSUS rs

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate a s. Kamaldeep Kaur and Ms. Ama the appellant. spondent No.1 and 2 have alread th the appellant vide order dated r. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate respondent No.3. -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appea challenging the concurrent find whereby the learned Trial Court creed the suit filed by the plainti Court dismissed the appeal ecree dated 07.01.2003. iefly stated, the facts of the case tion to the effect that the judgm P4, passed in Civil Suit No.319

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2680-2003 (O&M) served on:-28.10.2025 ate of Decision : 30.10.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU assisted by andeep Kaur, Advocate dy compromised the matter d 11.10.2021. e al has been filed by Smt. Batti w dings of fact recorded by both t, vide judgment and decree da iffs on 14.06.1995, and the learn preferred by the defendant v e are that the plaintiffs institute ment and decree dated 01.04.19 of 1988 titled Smt. Batti vs. S

- wife ated ned vide ed a 988,

Ram Bhuli by th null and void, consequential re

3.

Hukma was th possession to th situated in villa "suit land." Smt legal heirs and r made an effort the death of Sm transferred in th dated 01.04.198 fraud and misre never appeared statement. It wa conspiracy and that no family defendant, and facts. The plain admit their claim and possession o

4.

statement raisin file the present s he Court of learned Sub Judge 1s and not binding upon the rig elief of possession regarding the e case of the plaintiffs, as ple heir father and Smt. Ram Bh he extent of 1/3rd share of lan age Thanthari, Tehsil Palwal, Di t. Ram Bhuli died on 22.02.1993 representatives. It has been furth to get the mutation of inheritan mt. Ram Bhuli, they came to kno he name of defendant Smt. Batti

¶88The said decree, according presentation played by the defen before the Court, nor made an as alleged that the impugned ju without adhering to the due pro settlement ever took place b hence, the impugned decree wa tiffs averred that despite being r m, compelling them to institute of the land in dispute. e defendant contested the claim ng preliminary objections that th suit as they were not the children

st Class, Palwal, be declared illeg ghts of the plaintiffs, along w land in dispute. eaded, is that Hukam Chand a huli, their mother, was owner nd measuring 150 kanals 5 mar istrict Faridabad, referred to as 3 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her averred that when the plaint nce sanctioned in their favour a ow that the suit land already sto by virtue of a judgment and dec to the plaintiffs, was the result ndant upon Smt. Ram Bhuli, as ny statement, nor filed any writ dgment and decree were passed ocedure of law. It was further sta etween Smt. Ram Bhuli and as obtained by misrepresenting requested, the defendant refused the present suit seeking declarat of the plaintiffs by filing a writ he plaintiffs had no locus stand n of Smt. Ram Bhuli. The plaint

- gal, with alias r in rlas her tiffs after ood cree t of she tten d in ated d to tion tten i to

had no cause of and conduct. Th limitation. It wa wrong facts and

5.

On possession of th was stated that S in-law. It was f alienated the lan

01.04.1988. She the claim, where that any fraud o thus submitted t be dismissed.

6.

Aft were framed by dated 20.01.199

¶1Pal ille

f action. They were estopped fro he suit was not maintainable in as bad for non-joinder of necessa d hence liable to be dismissed. n merits, the defendant admitted he land in dispute but denied tha Smt. Ram Bhuli had no issue an further pleaded that out of her o nd in favour of the defendant th e had herself engaged a counse eupon the decree was passed in or misrepresentation had been pl that the plaintiffs had no cause ter the pleadings of the parties w y the then learned Civil Judge (J 97: Whether the decree and jud Court of Shri Dharam Pal, the lwal, in case titled Batti vs. Ra 88, and the revenue entries enter egal and void, having been obta d fraud, and as such are not bin d thus liable to be set aside? OPP

om filing the suit by their own a the present form. It was barred ary parties and the suit was based that Smt. Ram Bhuli was owne at the plaintiffs were her children nd that the defendant was her sis own free will, Smt. Ram Bhuli h hrough the impugned decree da l, appeared in Court, and admit accordance with law. It was den layed upon Smt. Ram Bhuli. It w of action and the suit was liable were complete, the following iss Junior Division), Palwal, vide or dgment dated 01.04.1988 passed then learned Sub Judge 1st Cla am Bhuli in Civil Suit No.319 red in pursuance thereof, are wro ained by way of misrepresentat nding on the rights of the plaint P

- acts d by d on r in n. It ter-had ated tted nied was e to sues rder d by ass, 9 of ong, tion

¶2suit

3.

¶4by

5.

6.

7. OP

¶8mu

9.

7.

In Roshan (plaintif documentary ev 1984–85 as Ex impugned judgm the plaint dated Mark B, the po X/A and Mark/B

8.

On examining Kara evidence, the de Ex.D1, the impu respectively, jam Whether the plaintiffs have t? OPD Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiffs are es their own act and conduct? OPD Whether the plaintiffs have n Whether the suit is time barre Whether the suit is bad for PD Whether the defendant is e uch? OPD Relief. order to prove their case, the p ff No.1) as PW2, Bhagwan Dass vidence, the plaintiffs produced x.P1, mutation No.2158 sanctio ment and decree dated 01.04.198

09.02.1988 as Mark A, the wri ower of attorney as Mark C, and B. n the other hand, the defendant an Singh as DW2 and Chatar efendant produced on record the ugned judgment and decree date mabandi for the years 1984–85

no locus standi to file the pres tainable? OPD stopped from filing the present D no cause of action? OPD ed? OPD r non-joinder of necessary parti ntitled to special costs, if so h plaintiffs examined Pyare as PW s as PW3, and Het Ram as PW4 on record jamabandi for the ye oned on 03.12.1993 as Ex.P2, 88 as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respective itten statement dated 01.04.1988 d copies of the voters list as M herself appeared as DW1 besi r Singh as DW3. In document copy of plaint dated 09.02.1988 ed 01.04.1988 as Ex.D2 and Ex as Ex.D4, jamabandi for the ye

- sent suit ies? how W1,

¶4In ears ely, 8 as Mark ides tary 8 as .D3

1989–90 as Ex.D as Ex.D7, muta defendant also

27.09.1993, 23. X/4, respectively Findings of the

9.

evidence led by had been able to Hukam Chand corroborated by (Ex.P2), wherei were found suff and her witnes contradictory, fu

10.

dated 01.04.198 before the Cour The record of th and no stateme impugned dec misrepresentatio title upon the d and void and no to possession of D5, jamabandi for the years 199 ation No.1874 as Ex.D8, and placed on record copies o

12.1993, and 18.01.1994, which y. e trial Court e learned Trial Court, after appr y both the parties, recorded a ca o establish that they were the ch @ Hukma was their father. Th y PW1 Pyare and PW4 Het Ra in the plaintiffs were shown as ficient to prove their relationship ses, upon close scrutiny, was urther strengthening the plaintiff e Court then examined the val 88 (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) and held th rt, nor did she engage any coun he previous suit clearly showed ent was made by her in Court cree was obtained by the on, and being an unregistered do defendant. Accordingly, the said ot binding on the rights of the pla f the land in dispute.

94–95 as Ex.D6, mutation No.18 mutation No.2203 as Ex.D9. T f roznamchas dated 03.05.19 h were marked as Mark X/1 to M reciating the oral and document ategorical finding that the plaint hildren of Smt. Ram Bhuli and t he statements of PW2 Roshan L am, along with mutation No. 2 the legal heirs of Smt. Ram Bh p. The testimony of DW1 Smt. B held to be inconsistent and s fs' case. lidity of the judgment and dec hat Smt. Ram Bhuli never appea nsel or sign any written stateme d that no advocate represented h t. It was thus concluded that defendant through fraud ocument, could not confer any va d decree was declared illegal, n aintiffs, who were also held entit

- 993, Mark tary tiffs that Lal, huli, Batti elf-cree ared ent. her, alid null,

11.

As observed that, i locus standi an brought on reco therefore Issues

12.

On Smt. Ram Bhuli the plaintiffs ac the year 1993, w suit having been the date of such

13.

Ult impugned judgm binding upon th land to the exten passed in their f Findings of the

14.

Smt. Batti again findings of the proved their rel heirs. The Cour and PW4 Het particularly mut Smt. Rambhulli regards the remaining issues n view of the findings on Issue nd the cause of action to file t ord to show estoppel, non-joind Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 8 were deci n the question of limitation i.e Iss i had never appeared before the cquired knowledge of the impug when they initiated steps to corre n filed on 14.06.1995 was thus knowledge and consequently wi timately, the learned Trial Cou ment and decree dated 01.04.198 he rights of the plaintiffs. A dec nt of 1/3rd share, as detailed in favour, leaving the parties to bear e Lower Appellate Court e learned Lower Appellate Cour nst the plaintiffs, reappraised th Trial Court. It was observed t lationship with Smt. Rambhulli rt found that the oral testimonies Ram were consistent and sup tation No. 2158 (Ex.P2), show i. The contradictory statements

, the learned Trial Court brie e No. 1, the plaintiffs had both the present suit. No evidence w der, or lack of maintainability, a ided against the defendant. sue No. 6, the Court held that si Court in the previous proceedin gned decree only after her death ect the revenue record. The pres held to be within three years fr ithin limitation. urt decreed the suit, declaring 88 as illegal, null, and void, and cree for joint possession of the paragraph 1 of the plaint, was a r their own costs. rt, while hearing the appeal filed he entire evidence and upheld that the plaintiffs had successfu i (Ram Bhuli) as her children s of PW2 Roshan Lal, PW1 Pya pported by documentary eviden wing the plaintiffs as legal heirs s of the defendant herself and

- efly was nce ngs, h in sent rom not suit also d by ully are, nce, s of

witnesses, espec to reinforce the

15.

dated 01.04.198 that Smt. Ram counsel, and her advocate's sign identified her in the defendant h voluntarily, and

16.

It w decree or based absence of reg property exceed baseless, and no Court agreed tha title. On the qu knowledge of th and the suit filed

17.

Las some of the pl decree, as once Court, the entire was accordingly Trial Court were cially regarding the identity of H plaintiffs' version rather than the e Appellate Court also held that 88 (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) had been o mbhulli never appeared before r alleged written statement and natures. Her statement was nev n the earlier proceedings. Conse had failed to prove that Smt. R the same was void for want of p was further held that even if the d on a family settlement, it co gistration, particularly when it ding ₹100 in value. The plea o suspicious circumstances wer at the decree was an unregistered uestion of limitation, it was rei he impugned decree only after th d in 1995 was well within time. stly, the Court held that the alle laintiffs and the defendant cou it was established that Smt. Ra e decree was void ab initio and y dismissed with costs, and the j e affirmed in toto.

Hukam Chand @ Hukma, were h e defendant's. the impugned judgment and dec obtained fraudulently. It was fou the Court, had not engaged power of attorney did not bear ver recorded in court, and no equently, the Court concluded t Rambhulli had suffered the dec proper appearance and consent. decree was claimed to be a cons ould not be treated as valid in purported to transfer immova a of family settlement was fou re explained by the defendant. T d document incapable of convey iterated that the plaintiffs acqui he death of Smt. Rambhulli in 19 eged compromise (Ex.C1) betw uld not validate an otherwise v ambhulli never appeared before d could not be severed. The app judgment and decree of the learn

- held cree und any any one that cree sent able und ying ired 993, ween void peal

18.

Ag defendant appro

19.

Up No.1 and 2 stat dated 11.10.202 Submissions of

20.

It h that both the C decreeing the misconceived gr the material qu principles of law

21.

It i was the daughte of the appellant 150 kanals 5 m father Chunni. T Bhuli, her broth respondents No Uttar Pradesh an about 60 years o when she suffer

22.

It i her one-third sh favour of any p grieved by the concurrent findin oached this Court by way of pres on notice, only respondent No.3 ted to have compromise the ma

¶21f learned counsel for the Appel has been contended by learned c Courts below have committed suit of the plaintiffs–respon rounds. The approach adopted b uestions of law and fact is co w, resulting in serious miscarriag is submitted that the record itse er of Shri Chunni, who was the g . The jamabandi (Ex.P-1) clearly marlas of land devolved upon Sm This share formed part of the jo her Kanni alias Karan Singh, an s.1 and 2, being sons of Hukam nd have no concern with the sui of age in 1998, while Smt. Ram red the decree dated 01.04.1988 i s further submitted that Smt. Ra hare and was fully competent t person of her choice. She volu

ngs of the Courts below appella ent regular second appeal. 3 contested the appeal. Responde atter with the appellant, vide or lant counsel for the appellant–defend grave illegality and perversity dents on wholly untenable by the Courts below in appreciat ontrary to the record and sett ge of justice to the appellant. elf establishes that Smt. Ram Bh grandfather of Murari Lal, husb y proves that one-third share ou mt. Ram Bhuli on the death of oint family property owned by R nd their legal heirs. The plaintif m Chand @ Hukma, are residents t property. Roshan Lal (PW-2) w m Bhuli was more than 70 years in favour of the appellant. am Bhuli was the absolute owner to transfer or alienate the same untarily suffered the decree da

- ant-ents rder dant y in ting tled huli ut of her Ram ffs– s of was old r of e in

1.4.1988 in the family settlemen said settlement, land which she acknowledgmen

23.

Lea convincing evid statement in the record to sugges Courts below e surmises.

24.

It i plaintiffs thems had raised obje based on the im PW-3 Het Ram within 10 to 12 knowledge of th therefore hopele Issue No. 6 in death of Smt. Ra

25.

It i plaintiffs had no Bhuli, particula civil suit instituted by the app nt arrived at about one year pri Smt. Ram Bhuli had agreed to r e had inherited from him. Th nt of the pre-existing arrangemen arned counsel submits that the p dence to show that the thumb imp e earlier suit was not that of Sm st that any fraud or misrepresent erred in discarding the lawful is urged that the Courts below selves. Roshan Lal (PW-2) adm ctions at the time of sanctionin mpugned decree, which mutatio likewise stated that he came to 2 days of its pronouncement. H he decree in the year 1988 itself essly barred by limitation, and t favour of the plaintiffs by reck am Bhuli in 1993. s also submitted that the Courts o locus standi to challenge the d arly when the property had alr

pellant on the basis of a bona-f ior to the filing of the suit. By return to the family of her father e decree was thus only a law nt. plaintiffs have failed to produce pression on the statement or writ mt. Ram Bhuli. There is nothing tation was practised upon her. B decree solely on conjectures also ignored the admissions of mitted in cross-examination that ng of mutation No. 1874 (Ex.D on was sanctioned on 28.07.19 o know of the passing of the dec Hence, the plaintiffs had comp f. The suit filed on 14.06.1995 w the Courts below erred in decid koning limitation from the date s below failed to appreciate that decree after the death of Smt. R ready stood validly transferred

- fide wful any tten g on Both t he D-8)

¶988cree lete was ding e of Ram

favour of the ap death was legall

26.

Rel in Bachan Sing a consent decree and cannot be t made to Gurdev a compromise d require registrat (Civil) 387 has settlements ackn are valid in law.

27.

erred in upsetti particulars of fr substantiate suc of fraud could n

28.

It compromise (E defendant–appe decree dated 1. admission was appeal and dism

29.

On propositions, it ppellant during Ram Bhuli's lif ly not maintainable. liance is placed upon the judgm gh v. Kartar Chand, 2002(1) PL e, even if based on a family settl treated as invalid merely for w v Kaur v. Mehar Singh 1990(1) decree creating or recognising tit tion. The ratio of Dhian Singh s also been relied upon to su nowledged through a consent de . e learned counsel further conten ing the decree dated 1.4.1988 aud were pleaded in the plaint, n ch a plea. In the absence of spec not have been returned against th is lastly argued that the low Ex.C-1) entered into between llant, wherein the plaintiffs them .4.1988 and acknowledged it a on record, the lower Appellate missed the suit filed by the plainti n the cumulative strength of is submitted that the concurren

fetime. The suit instituted after ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Co LJ 59, wherein it has been held t lement, does not require registrat want thereof. Similarly, reference PLR 334, wherein it was held t tle in immovable property does v. Mohinder Singh 2018 (4) R ubmit that oral or written fam ecree stand on the same footing nds that both Courts below grav on the ground of fraud when nor any cogent evidence was led cific pleadings and proof, a find e appellant. wer Appellate Court ignored plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 and mselves admitted the legality of as binding upon them. Once su Court ought to have accepted iffs. f the aforesaid facts and le nt findings recorded by the Cou

- her ourt that tion e is that not RCR mily vely d to ding uch egal

below are perv judgments and d plaintiffs–respon Submissions of

30.

Lea the appeal, subm upon correct app any illegality o jurisdiction unde

31.

It i pleas beyond he inception has b consent decree wanted to retur However, this st wherein her wit Chand @ Hukm even learned co plaintiffs with S sons of Smt. Ra

32.

It demonstrates th passed the dec appearing on th proved to be h verse, unsustainable, and contra decrees are therefore liable to be ndents deserves to be dismissed f learned counsel for responden arned counsel for the contesting mitted that the findings recorded preciation of oral and documenta r perversity warranting interfer er Article 227 of the Constitution s argued that the appellant–defe er own pleadings. The consisten been that Smt. Ram Bhuli had dated 01.04.1988 was suffered rn the land inherited from her tand has been proved to be false tnesses admitted that the plainti ma, husband of Smt. Ram Bhuli ounsel for the appellant did n Smt. Ram Bhuli. Once it stands e m Bhuli, the entire foundation o was further contended that hat Smt. Ram Bhuli never appe ree dated 01.04.1988. Except he written statement and power hers, there is no material on

ary to settled law. The impugn e set aside, and the suit filed by with costs. nt No.3 g respondent No.3, while oppos by both the Courts below are ba ary evidence and do not suffer fr rence by this Court in exercise n of India. endant cannot be permitted to ra nt stand taken by her from the v no child of her own and that in her favour because Ram Bh father to the family of her fath from the appellant's own eviden ffs are, in fact, the sons of Huk i. During the course of argumen not dispute the relationship of established that the plaintiffs are f the appellant's case collapses. the documentary record clea eared before the Civil Court wh for an alleged thumb impress r of attorney, which has not b record to show her presence

- ned sing ased rom e of aise very huli her. nce, kam nts, arly hich sion een

participation in case does not b carry the verific part, there is circumstances, a that Smt. Ram B was obtained by

33.

It w upon by the app plea was ever otherwise, no e relationship betw settlement. The Bhuli, and there assuming that th in view of the exceeding ₹100 registration rend

34.

On knowledge of th when they appro of natural succe appellant. The s from the date o rightly applied A the said proceedings. The so-ca ear the signatures of any advoc cation or endorsement of any co no mark of Smt. Ram Bhul as rightly noted by the learned C Bhuli never appeared before the C y playing fraud upon her. was next urged that the plea of fa pellant is wholly an afterthought raised in the written stateme evidence was led to prove exist ween the parties was not such a appellant is merely the daughter efore, had no pre-existing right he decree was voluntarily suffere fact that it purported to trans 0 to a person having no pre-exis ders the decree void and inoperat n the question of limitation, it wa he impugned decree only after th oached the revenue authorities fo ession and discovered the existe suit having been filed on 14.06 f knowledge and clearly within Article 65 of the Limitation Ac

alled power of attorney filed in t cate; nor does the written statem ounsel. Even below the verificat li's thumb impression. All th Courts below, unmistakably indic Court and that the impugned dec amily settlement sought to be rel t and beyond pleadings, as no su ent before the Trial Court. Ev tence of any such settlement. T as to attract the concept of a fam r-in-law of the brother of Smt. R t in the suit property. Hence, ev ed, it was compulsorily registera sfer immovable property of va sting right therein. The absence tive in law. as argued that the plaintiffs acqui he death of Smt. Ram Bhuli in 19 or sanction of mutation on the ba ence of the decree in favour of

6.1995 was thus within three ye limitation. The Courts below h ct, 1963, which governs suits ba

- that ment tion hese cate cree lied uch ven mily Ram ven able alue e of ired 993, asis ears have

on title for poss of the Hon'ble S 202, where it w no separate dec would be govern

35.

Lea Changalvaraya (Supreme Cour Court is a nulli Fraud vitiates t obtained is non examination of decree dated 01 Ram Bhuli, an pretext of some

36.

It w Bachan Singh misplaced, as th pre-existing righ either pleaded o Bhuli recorded conclusively pro

37.

Las Court and the L evidence, and c ession of immovable property. R Supreme Court in Shanti Devi v as held that in cases where a tra claration is necessary under Art ned by Article 65, which provide arned counsel for the respondent Naidu (dead) by LRs v. Jaga rt) 853, to contend that a decree ity in law and can be challeng the most solemn proceedings, n est in the eyes of law. The le the record and the evidence, h

1.04.1988 was the result of fra illiterate lady, was made to affi other proceedings. was also submitted that the reli 's case (supra) and Dhian hose cases involved genuine fam hts. In contrast, in the present c or proved. Moreover, the absen d before the Civil Court, or oves that the impugned decree w stly, it was argued that the concu Lower Appellate Court are findin cannot be interfered with in sec

Reliance is placed on the judgme v. Jagan Devi 2025(4) RCR (Ci ansaction or decree is void ab ini icle 59 and the suit for possess es a limitation of 12 years. ts further placed reliance upon S gannath (dead) by LRs 1994 A obtained by playing fraud upon ged even in collateral proceedin and any judgment or decree earned Courts below, after detai have rightly held that the cons aud and misrepresentation, as S fix her thumb impression under ance placed by the appellant up Singh's case (supra) is who mily settlements where parties h ase, no such family settlement w nce of any statement of Smt. R any identification by a witne was obtained by deceit. urrent findings recorded by the t ngs of fact, based on appreciation cond appeal. The findings that

- ents ivil) itio, sion S.P. AIR ngs. so iled sent Smt. pon olly had was Ram ess, trial

decree dated 01 plaintiffs are ful Findings of this

38.

Aft counsel for resp below, this Cou Regular Second concurrently an by Smt. Ram Bh that it was unreg succeed to her e by the evidence no interference i

39.

It i appellant that S had voluntarily family settlemen record. The so-c before the Trial existing arrange record of the ea unmistakably re nor did she sign advocate engag impression with

1.04.1988 is fraudulent, void, an lly supported by evidence and so s Court ter hearing learned counsel for pondent No. 3 and having careful urt is of the considered opinion t d Appeal filed by Smt. Batt d rightly held that the decree da huli, was obtained by practising gistered, and that the plaintiffs b estate by inheritance. The concur e on record and consistent with in second appellate jurisdiction. is the first and principal conten mt. Ram Bhuli was the absolut suffered the decree in favour nt. This plea, however, stands d called family settlement was nev l Court, nor was any material ement ever existed between Smt arlier civil proceedings leading eveals that Smt. Ram Bhuli neve n or verify any written statemen ed by her. The alleged power o hout any authentication by an ad

nd not binding on the rights of ound reasoning. r the appellant as well as learn lly perused the record of the Cou that there is no merit in the pres ti. Both the Courts below h ated 01.04.1988, allegedly suffe fraud upon her and upon the Co eing her natural heirs are entitled rrent findings being fully suppor the settled position of law, call tion of the learned counsel for e owner of her one-third share a of the appellant on the basis o demolished on the very face of ver pleaded in the written statem produced to suggest that any p . Ram Bhuli and the appellant. T to the decree dated 1 April 19 er appeared before the Civil Jud nt or power of attorney through of attorney bears merely a thum dvocate or attesting witness, and

-ned urts sent have ered ourt, d to rted for of a ment pre-dge, h an mb-

written statemen Smt. Ram Bhu endorsement or entire proceedin she was never p rightly conclude and that Smt. Ra

40.

untenable and a recognised in l existing right in she is merely th therefore, was t family entitled t was inherited by under Section 1 or necessity fo learned counsel Singh's case (su family settlemen lend any assista time under an u below between and this Court fi nt neither bears the signature of uli herself. Even below the mark. These circumstances, tak ng was manipulated behind the present before the Court. Both ed that the decree was obtained b am Bhuli had never consciously e plea of a "family settlement" a an afterthought. It is a settled law aw only when the parties ther n the property. In the present cas he daughter-in-law of the broth that of a remote relation by mar to a share in ancestral or joint fa y Smt. Ram Bhuli from her fath 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, or any family settlement. Cons l for the appellant upon Bachan upra) is wholly misconceived. B nts between near relations havin ance to the appellant whose alle unregistered consent decree. Th those authorities and the facts o finds no reason to take a different

f any counsel nor the verification verification clause, there is ken cumulatively, establish that back of Smt. Ram Bhuli, and t the Courts below have, therefo by deception and misrepresentati or voluntarily suffered the same advanced by the appellant is equa w that a family arrangement can reto have some antecedent or p se, the appellant had no such rig her of Smt. Ram Bhuli. Her stat rriage, and not of a member of amily property. The land in disp her Chunni as her absolute prope 1956. There was, thus, no occas sequently, the reliance placed n Singh's case (supra) and Dh Both those cases dealt with genu ng pre-existing rights. They do eged right was created for the f he distinction drawn by the Cou of the present case is well-found t view.

- n of that ore, ion, e. ally n be pre-ght; tus, pute erty sion by hian uine not first urts ded,

41.

It w could not have b This contention a view to securi proved by circu any signed plea through any au circumstances w upon the Cour Supreme Court upon the Court even in collater proceedings. On must fall. Appl decree dated 01 and cannot be pe

42.

without substan ₹100 in value to consented to, op under Section 1 this nature cann property. The C the decree was The principle l was next argued by learned coun been annulled in the absence of s also deserves rejection. Fraud is ng some unfair or unlawful gain umstantial evidence. The record ading or statement by Smt. Ra uthorised counsel, and the false which unmistakably establish tha rt. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Na authoritatively laid down that a is a nullity, non-existent in the ral proceedings. Fraud, it was o nce fraud is established, every lying that principle, both the C

1.04.1988, having been procured ermitted to stand. e next submission regarding r nce. The decree purports to conv o a person who had no pre-existin perates as an instrument of trans 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act not create, declare, assign, or e Courts below have, therefore, cor voluntary, it was legally ineffec laid down in Bachan Singh'

nsel for the appellant that the dec specific pleadings or proof of fra s an act of deliberate deception w n, and in civil proceedings, it can of the earlier case, the absence am Bhuli, the lack of appeara e assertion of her presence are at fraud was practised upon her aidu's case (supra), the Hon' a decree obtained by playing fr eyes of law, and can be challeng observed, vitiates the most sole order and decree founded upon Courts below rightly held that d by fraudulent means, is a nul registration of the decree is a vey immovable property exceed ng right in it. Such a decree, eve fer and is compulsorily registera t, 1908. An unregistered decree extinguish any right in immova rrectly held that even assuming t ctive in the absence of registrati 's case (supra) cannot assist

- cree aud. with n be e of ance all 'ble aud ged emn n it llity also ding en if able e of able that

appellant becau family settleme settlement has b

43.

As were aware of t time, is equally clearly establish only after the de authorities for discovered the thereafter, they therefore, rightly to be within tim misplaced. The require cancella 65, which pres possession of im recent pronoun (supra), wherein account of fraud of its invalidity declaration. The be governed by the plaintiffs is c use that case concerned a dec ent, whereas in the present c been proved. regards limitation, the argumen the decree in 1988 and that the untenable. The evidence of PW hes that the plaintiffs acquired k eath of Smt. Ram Bhuli in 1993, sanctioning mutation on the existence of the decree in fav y instituted the present suit on y reckoned limitation from the d me. Reliance of the appellant on decree in question, being void ation under Article 59. The corr scribes a limitation of twelve mmovable property. This view cement of the Hon'ble Supre n it was held that when a docum d or want of jurisdiction, it is non y can be raised in any procee e Hon'ble Court further held that Article 65, and not Article 59. clearly within limitation and was

cree acknowledging a pre-exist case no such antecedent right nt of the appellant that the plaint ir suit filed in 1995 was barred W2 Roshan Lal and PW3 Het R knowledge of the impugned dec , when they approached the reven basis of natural succession vour of the appellant. Immediat n 14.06.1995. The Courts belo date of knowledge and held the Article 59 of the Limitation Ac d and non-existent in law, did rect provision applicable is Art years for suits based on title w finds complete support from me Court in Shanti Devi's c ment or decree is void ab initio n est in the eyes of law and the p edings without seeking a separ t in such cases the limitation wo Applying that principle, the suit s rightly entertained.

- ting or tiffs d by Ram cree nue tely ow, suit ct is not icle for case o on plea rate ould

44.

It w plaintiffs are est on its basis. Thi nature and do n operate against f case (supra) cat own fraud, and of technical est nullity, all pr automatically vi

45.

had no locus st Once it is establ continued to re inherit and wer clouded their tit Bhuli when they filed thereafter.

46.

been rightly dis Singh's case (su settlements betw have no applica purports to creat on behalf of the was faintly suggested by learned topped from challenging the dec is contention is devoid of merit. not confer or extinguish title. M fraud. The Hon'ble Supreme Co tegorically held that no one can a decree vitiated by fraud canno toppel or waiver. In the presen roceedings founded upon it, itiated. e Court also finds no substance tandi to challenge the decree af lished that the decree was never v emain vested in Smt. Ram Bhu re fully competent to challenge tle. Their cause of action arose y came to know of the decree, e judgments relied upon by lear stinguished by both the Courts upra) and Dhian Singh's case ( ween co-sharers or close relatio ation where the transferee had n te a new right in his favour. On e respondents, namely S.P. Che

d counsel for the appellant that cree since mutation was sanction Mutation proceedings are fisca More importantly, estoppel can ourt in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naid be allowed to take advantage of ot be permitted to stand on grou nt case, since the decree itself i including the mutation, st e in the argument that the plaint fter the death of Smt. Ram Bh validly passed and that the prope uli, her heirs acquired the right e the fraudulent decree which h e only after the death of Smt. R and the suit was, therefore, righ rned counsel for the appellant h s below. The decisions in Bach (supra) dealt with bona fide fam ons having antecedent rights. Th no pre-existing title and the dec the other hand, the authorities ci engalvaraya Naidu's case (sup

- ned al in nnot du's f his unds is a tiffs huli. erty t to had Ram htly have han mily hey cree ited pra)

and Shanti Devi all judicial acts of the Courts pronouncements Conclusion

47.

In v Courts below h recorded well-re in their conclus fraud upon Sm conferred no titl the plaintiffs, as estate. The con unimpeachable d

48.

Acc dismissed. The affirmed by the

49.

Pen

October 30, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh i's case (supra), lay down the co and that a void decree does not s below are in strict conso s. view of the foregoing discussio have correctly appreciated the easoned findings on each issue. sions that the decree dated 01.0 mt. Ram Bhuli. The said decr le upon the appellant. The plaint s the legal heirs of Smt. Ram Bhu ncurrent findings are based on s documentary and oral evidence. cordingly, the present Regular judgments and decrees passed learned Lower Appellate Court nding application(s), if any, also

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

orrect proposition that fraud vitia t require cancellation. The findi onance with these authoritat on, this Court finds that the learn pleadings and evidence and h There is no perversity or illega

04.1988 was obtained by practis ree, being unregistered and vo tiffs' suit was within limitation uli, are entitled to possession of sound reasoning and supported

Second Appeal fails and is her d by the learned Trial Court are upheld stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- ates ings tive ned have ality sing oid, her d by