Krishna Ram v. Ajay Kumar

IN T

Krishna Ram (si

Ajay Kumar

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Ms MANDEEP PA

1.

plaintiff Krishna the learned Add dated 14.05.199 declaration, wer Brief Facts

2.

suit for declara measuring 27 k marlas, situated District Yamun THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

ince deceased) through LRs VERSUS

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and r. Purusharth Dhull, Advocate for r. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate ass s. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appe a Ram against the judgment and ditional District Judge, Jagadhri, 97 passed by the learned Senior re reversed. e brief facts of the case are tha ation to the effect that he is kanals 17 marlas and 1/6th shar d within the revenue estate of a Nagar, with all rights appurte

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-427-1999 (O&M) served on:- 27.10.2025 ate of Decision :04.11.2025

....Appellants

....Respondent DEEP PANNU r the appellants. sisted by respondent. eal has been filed by the appella decree dated 27.01.1999 passed , whereby the judgment and dec r Sub Judge, Jagadhri in a suit at the plaintiff Krishna Ram file owner in possession of the l re of land measuring 10 kanals village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagad enant thereto in Shamlat Deh e

- ant– d by cree for ed a dhri, etc.,

and further soug

29.04.1988 pass "Ajay Kumar vs Judge, Ist Class, the rights of the II Grade, Jagad entries regardin illegal, null an restraining the d plaintiff over the

3.

through his fath alleged that he i the defendant, b the land in disp defendant, Babu secure a loan fr being an illitera thumb impressio for the loan pro and the defenda The plaintiff nev in any manner. ght a declaration to the effect t sed in favour of the defendant i s. Krishna Ram" by the Court , Jagadhri, is illegal, null and voi plaintiff. It was also prayed that dhri, on 22.07.1988 in pursuan ng ownership and possession b d void, and that a decree for defendant from interfering in th e land in dispute. e suit was filed against Ajay Ku er and natural guardian, Shri Bab is the owner in possession of the being a minor, and his father ha pute. It was further averred that u Ram, requested the plaintiff t rom the bank for the constructio ate and old man, agreed to stan ons were obtained on certain pap cess. However, by playing fraud ant got a fraudulent decree from ver executed any transfer deed o . Therefore, the judgment and

that the judgment and decree da in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 tit of Shri M.L. Bansal, the then S id, ineffective and not binding up t mutation No. 844 attested by A nce of the said decree and furt based on the said decree are a r permanent injunction be pas he actual physical possession of umar, minor son of Shri Babu Ra bu Ram. Briefly stated, the plain suit land mentioned above and t ave no concern with the plaintiff in the year 1988, the father of to stand surety for him in order on of a pucca house. The plaint nd surety, and for that purpose, pers, which were said to be requi d and misrepresentation, Babu R m the Court regarding the suit la or relinquished his ownership rig decree dated 29.04.1988 and

- ated tled Sub pon A.C. ther also ssed am, ntiff ff or r to tiff, his ired Ram and.

consequential m obtained with m

4.

that the plaintif pleaded that the given to the de filed a suit adm and consent, the and binding upo stated that muta the decree. It wa retained with him defendant furthe registrable, as i previous suit. I voluntary conse the law on beh plaintiff has alre decree in 1988, does not arise. T is barred by law file the present s

5.

Rep denying the ave mutation No. 844 were the resu mala fide intention and ulterior m e defendant, on the other hand, ff is related to him, being the ere was no fraud or misrepresen efendant in a family settlement, mitting the claim of the present d e decree was passed by the Cour on all parties, including the pres ation No. 844 was rightly sanctio as also pleaded that under the sa m cash and jewellery in lieu of t er contended that the decree date it was passed on the basis of It was also pleaded that since ent of the plaintiff, no permissio alf of the minor defendant. Th eady been out of possession of th , and therefore, the question of The defendant also raised additio w of limitation, res judicata, that suit, and that the same is not mai plication was filed, wherein the rments made in the written statem

ult of fraud and misrepresentati motives. denied the allegations and asser brother of his grandfather. It w ntation, and that the suit land w , in which the plaintiff volunta defendant. Based on such admiss rt, which was perfectly legal, va sent plaintiff. The defendant furt oned in his name in consequence aid family arrangement, the plain the land given to the defendant. T ed 29.04.1988 was not compulso f admission of the plaintiff in e the decree was passed with on of the Court was required un he defendant further stated that he suit land since the passing of f any interference in his possess onal objections that the present t the plaintiff has no locus stand intainable in the present form. plaintiff reiterated his earlier sta ment.

- ion, rted was was arily sion alid, ther e of ntiff rily nder f the sion suit di to and,

6.

On order dated 14.0

¶1det

¶2fav Ku voi

¶3by dec pos are righ

¶4phy alie

5.

6.

7. OP

¶8n the pleadings of the parties, the

05.1992: Whether the plaintiff is own tailed in the headnote of the pla reto in shamlat deh etc.? OPP Whether the judgment and vour of the defendant in Civil S umar vs. Krishna Ram with resp id, ineffective and not binding up Whether mutation No. 844 A.C. II Grade, Jagadhri on 22. cree and further entries with ssession on the basis of the said d also illegal, null and void, ine hts of the plaintiff? OPP Whether the defendant is ysical possession of the plaint enation? OPP Whether the suit is barred by Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiff has no PD Whether the suit is barred by

e following issues were framed v ner in possession of the suit land aint with all the rights appurten decree dated 29.04.1988 passed Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled as A pect to the suit land is illegal, n pon the rights of the plaintiff? OP attested in favour of the defend .07.1988 pursuant to the impugn h respect to the ownership decree in the name of the defend effective and not binding upon illegally interfering in the act tiff over the suit land by way y the principle of res judicata? OP tainable? OPD locus standi to file the present su y limitation? OPD

- vide d as nant d in Ajay null, PP dant ned dant tual y of PD uit?

¶9und friv

¶10Findings of the

7.

came to the con of the suit land judgment and d Ajay Kumar vs. It was found th Babu Ram, fath documents unde papers were late Court observed was a concocted the plaintiff. Si property, there presuppose exis was held to be c in the eyes of decree was also plaintiff. It was possession of th Whether the answering def der Section 35-A CPC, the sui volous? OPD

Relief. e trial Court e trial Court, after examining th nclusion that the plaintiff Krishna along with all rights appurtena decree dated 29.04.1988 passed Krishna Ram was obtained by w hat the plaintiff, being an old a er of the minor defendant, to affi er the pretext of standing surety er misused to procure a consent that the alleged family settleme d story and that the suit property ince the defendant Ajay Kuma could be no valid family s sting rights in favour of all par collusive, fictitious, and a produ law. Consequently, the mutatio o declared illegal, ineffective, an s further held that the plaintiff he suit land, and the defendant

fendant is entitled to special co it of the plaintiff being false he oral and documentary eviden a Ram was the owner in possess ant thereto. The Court held that in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 tit way of fraud and misrepresentati and illiterate man, was induced fix his thumb impressions on cert y for a bank loan. However, th decree in favour of the minor. T ent forming the basis of that dec y was the self-acquired property ar had no pre-existing right in settlement, as such arrangeme rties. The earlier decree, therefo uct of fraud, making it null and v on sanctioned on the basis of t nd not binding on the rights of continued to remain in cultivat t, through his father, was illega

- osts nce, sion tled ion. by tain hose cree y of ents ore, void ting

attempting to in Court accepted t defendant starte and therefore, t defendant regard the ground that suit, and the pla and injunction.

8.

Acc that the judgme its basis were plaintiff. The peaceful possess Findings of the

9.

reasoning of the plaintiff Krishn failed to establi the plaintiff him and suffered the he was deceived surety for a loan contradictions in in the earlier sui nterfere in that possession by rel the plaintiff's evidence that the c ed asserting ownership and thre the suit was filed within limita ding res judicata, locus standi, an the earlier decree being void an aintiff, being in possession, was cordingly, the trial Court decree ent and decree dated 29.04.1988 illegal, null, and void, and no defendant was permanently re sion of the plaintiff over the suit e Lower Appellate Court e lower appellate Court, after re e trial Court, reversed the findin na Ram had voluntarily suffered sh any element of fraud or misr mself had admitted in his testim e decree in favour of Ajay Kum d into putting his thumb impres n was found inconsistent and un n the plaintiff's evidence and fou it clearly showed conscious parti

lying on the fraudulent decree. T cause of action arose only when eatened to dispossess the plaint ation. The objections raised by and maintainability were rejected nd fraudulent could not bar a fr fully competent to seek declarat ed the suit on 14.05.1997, declar 8 and mutation No. 844 attested ot binding upon the rights of estrained from interfering in land or alienating it in any mann eappreciating the evidence and ngs primarily on the ground that d the decree dated 29.04.1988 representation. It was observed t mony that he had appeared in Co ar. His subsequent explanation t ssions under the pretext of stand nreliable. The appellate Court no und that his conduct and admissi icipation, not deception.

- tiff, d on resh tion ring d on ner. ourt ding oted

10.

Ram, father of plaintiff's own advocate who admitted the con them. The Court basis of the earl held that the de the rights admi property for the

11.

was rightly refl Kumar and that of limitation rai filed nearly fou findings of the unsustainable. T

29.04.1988 to b Court, and dism

12.

Fee present appeal, w Submission of l

13.

Lea that the judgmen e Court held that there was no cr the minor defendant, had playe witnesses was found contrad drafted the earlier compromis ntents of the written statement an t observed that once the plaintiff ier decree, he was estopped from ecree in question did not require itted by the parties and did no first time. e appellate Court also observed lected in the revenue record in the plaintiff had failed to prove ised by the appellant was also fo ur years after the 1988 decree. trial Court on issues of fraud The lower appellate Court the be valid and binding, set aside th missed the suit of Krishna Ram. eling aggrieved, the appellant which upon notice is contested b learned counsel for the appella arned counsel for the appellant– nt and decree passed by the learn

redible evidence to prove that B ed any fraud. The statement of dictory, and the testimony of e showed that Krishna Ram h nd compromise after understand f had admitted the facts forming m later denying them. It was furt e registration as it merely affirm ot create new rights in immova that the possession of the suit l n the name of the defendant A his continued possession. The p found to have merit, as the suit w Consequently, it was held that d, ownership, and possession w erefore declared the decree da he judgment and decree of the t t-Krishna Ram has preferred by the respondent. ant –plaintiff Krishna Ram has argu ned lower appellate Court revers

- abu had ding ther med able Ajay plea was were ated trial ued

the well-conside record. It is sub that the decre misrepresentatio lower appellate evidence brough

14.

Lea of the Hon'ble S AIR 1996 SC 1 for the first tim the defendant h family settlemen could not transfe case is fully co Jagannath and L.R. vs. Bhali ( decree obtained of law, and suc further submitte against a person

15.

It i the appellant ha is nothing on re in the earlier su ered judgment of the trial Court bmitted that the trial Court had ee dated 29.04.1988 was ob on and that the same was a null Court erred in ignoring settled ht on record by the plaintiff. arned counsel for the appellant Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh 96, to contend that where a righ me, the decree requires registratio ad no pre-existing right in the s nt forming the basis of the 1988 fer ownership in favour of the de overed by the ratio laid down d Others (AIR 1994 SC 853) an

(2012) 11 SCC 574, wherein it by playing fraud upon the Cour ch a decree can be challenged e ed that fraud vitiates all judicial n who has been a victim of fraud. is contended that the learned lo ad voluntarily suffered the decre ecord to suggest that the plaintiff uit. The trial Court rightly held

is contrary to law and evidence rightly decreed the suit by hold btained by way of fraud lity in the eyes of law. The learn d legal principles and the mate placed reliance upon the judgm vs. Ram Singh Major and Othe ht in immovable property is crea on. In the present case, admitted suit property; therefore, the alleg decree was without foundation fendant. It is further argued that in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu nd Smt. Badami (deceased) by t has been held that a judgment rt is a nullity and non est in the e even in collateral proceedings. I l acts, and no estoppel can oper . ower appellate Court's finding t ee is wholly unsustainable, as th f knowingly admitted the pleadi d that the plaintiff was an old

- e on ding ned erial ment ers, ated dly, ged vs. her t or eyes It is rate here

illiterate person under the pretex procure the decr not pleaded or p fraudulent cond effect on oath. burden shifted u failed to do.

16.

It i invoking the ba plea was ever ta Court therefore not raised by the Court that the d of law laid dow relied on Ex.P-1 before the trial name of Krishn proving his cont

17.

defendant that K given to the de himself, who a Ram in exchang n who was misled into putting xt of standing surety for a bank ree. The observation of the lowe proved is factually incorrect, as t duct of Babu Ram, the father of Once fraud was pleaded and s upon the defendant to disprove t is further submitted that the fin ar of Order 23 Rule 3A CPC is aken by the defendant in his wri committed a jurisdictional error e parties. It is also urged that the decree did not require registratio wn in Bhoop Singh's case (su 11 to P-40 (electricity bills and re Court, to show that the tubewe na Ram and that he was payin tinued possession over the suit p e appellant's counsel further Krishna Ram was duly compen efendant stands falsified by th dmitted in cross-examination th ge for the alleged family settlem

his thumb impressions on pap k loan, which were later misused er appellate Court that the fraud w the plaintiff specifically pleaded the defendant, and deposed to t supported by sworn testimony, the allegation, which the defend nding of the lower appellate Co s beyond the pleadings, as no su itten statement. The lower appel r in deciding the appeal on a grou e observation of the lower appell on is contrary to the settled posit upra). The learned counsel furt eceipts), which were duly produ ell in the suit property stood in ng the electricity charges, ther property. pointed out that the case of nsated in lieu of the land allege he testimony of DW4, Babu R hat nothing was given to Krish ment and that he never accompan

- pers d to was dant ourt uch late und late tion ther uced eby edly Ram hna

Krishna Ram to clearly prove th fraud and misrep otherwise, and t Submissions of

18.

On supported the ju reasoned and b previous suit fil statement (Ex.D compromise (Ex duly recorded (E voluntary admis binding.

19.

3 CPC, once a the only remedy recorded the co evidence of frau or convincing m the appellant we proof and admis law. The respon land was mutate o the Court at the time the dec hat the decree in favour of the presentation. The lower appellat the impugned judgment is liable f learned counsel for the respon n the other hand, learned counse udgment of the lower appellate ased on proper appreciation of ed on 27.01.1988, the plaintiff K D1) admitting the claim of th x.D2) before the Court, where t Ex.D3). Therefore, the decree d ssion and compromise of Krishn e respondent's counsel further s compromise decree is passed, n y available to the aggrieved party ompromise. It is also argued th ud on record, as the plaintiff has material to substantiate his claim. ere objected to at the time of te ssibility; mere exhibition of docu ndent further pointed out that th ed in the name of the defendant

cree was passed. These admissi minor defendant was obtained te Court, therefore, erred in hold to be set aside. ndent el for the respondent–defendant e Court, contending that it is w f evidence. It is argued that in Krishna Ram himself filed a writ he defendant and also executed the statements of both parties w dated 29.04.1988 was passed on na Ram and was perfectly legal submitted that under Order 23 R no separate suit lies to challenge y is to approach the same Court t hat there is no specific pleading s failed to produce any independ . The electricity bills relied upon endering on the ground of mode uments does not amount to proo he decree was duly acted upon, t, and the revenue records reflec

- ons by ding has well-tten d a were Rule e it; g or dent n by e of f in

his ownership an since died and h who is a distant by a person hav plaintiff did not trial Court failed Findings of this

20.

Aft records of the c Second Appeal and decree passe upon correct app were perverse reversed by the

21.

that the decree d is therefore a n pleaded and pro bare allegation corroboration, c case, the plainti he had appeared plea now soug impressions und nd possession. It was also argued has been substituted by his leg t relative, and hence the present ving no direct interest in the prop t provide any detailed particular d to record a specific finding sup s Court ter hearing the learned counsel courts below, I am of the consid is devoid of any merit and is lia ed by the learned lower appellat preciation of facts and law. The and contrary to the evidence learned first appellate court. e principal contention raised by dated 29.04.1988 was obtained b nullity cannot be accepted. The oved by cogent evidence, as requ of fraud, unsupported by conv cannot vitiate a decree passed by iff himself admitted during his s d in court and suffered the decr ght to be raised that he was der the pretext of standing sur

d that the plaintiff Krishna Ram al representative Lachhman Sin t proceedings are being prosecu perty. Lastly, it was argued that rs of fraud in his plaint and that pported by evidence on that issue l for the parties and perusing dered view that the present Regu able to be dismissed. The judgm e court are well reasoned and ba findings recorded by the trial co on record and have rightly b y learned counsel for the appell by playing fraud upon the court plea of fraud must be specifica uired under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC vincing particulars or independ y a competent court. In the pres statement before the trial court t ree in favour of the defendant. T deceived into putting his thu rety for a loan is an afterthoug

- has ngh, uted e. ular ment ased ourt een lant ally C. A dent sent umb ght,

inconsistent wit person who ha cannot later turn

22.

Hon'ble Suprem and Smt. Badam decisions, the fr and deliberate appellant in the nor produced an Babu Ram misl fraud, therefore appellate court Krishna Ram w supported by th statements (Ex. Fraud no doubt genuine deceit a present case fal the finality of ju solemn undertak

23.

required registra force. The learn th his own earlier conduct. The as consciously participated in p n around to challenge the decree e reliance placed by the appe me Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya mi (deceased) by her L.R. vs. B raud alleged was clearly proved suppression of material facts present case has neither identif ny independent evidence to sho led the court at the time the earl e, remains a mere assertion w has rightly held that no evidenc was misled, and his own state he written statement (Ex.D1), c .D3), clearly establish that the t vitiates every solemn act, bu and a belated attempt to undo on ls in the latter category. Permitt udicial proceedings and encoura kings. The justice system cannot e next submission of the appe ation under Section 17 of the R ned lower appellate court has cor

courts have repeatedly held tha proceedings and admitted a cla on vague allegations of deceit. ellant upon the judgments of a Naidu vs. Jagannath and Oth Bhali is misplaced. In both the s by withholding of vital docume before the court. In contrast, fied any such material concealm ow that the defendant or his fat lier decree was passed. The plea without substantiation. The low ce was forthcoming to suggest t ement in the earlier proceedin compromise (Ex.D2) and recor e decree was suffered voluntar ut courts must distinguish betw ne's own conscious admission. T ting such challenges would dest age litigants to renege on their o t countenance such abuse ellant that the decree in quest Registration Act, 1908 also has rrectly observed that the decree

- at a aim hers said ents ment ther a of wer ngs, ded rily. ween troy own tion

not create any n plaintiff in the e defendant. Whe parties, it is not Vs Rati Ram a court, in para 10 "... exe of t com imm

24.

Equ appellate court e a decree is pass separate suit lie the same court specifically take being statutory appellate court subsequent suit by the Hon'ble Rai vs Rajinder "'1 Ord new right for the first time but o earlier suit acknowledging the tr ere the decree merely affirms pre compulsorily registrable. Relian and Anr. 2006(4) RCR (civil) 3 0 held that : .the position that emerges is th empted from registration even if the Registration Act are attracte mes under the exception, unl movable property that is not the ually untenable is the appell erred in invoking Order 23 Rule sed on the basis of a lawful co s to challenge the same, and the t which recorded the compro en in the written statement, the , it operates irrespective of t has therefore not committed to challenge a compromise decr Supreme court in Pushpa Devi r Singh & Ors. 2006 (3) RCR (ci

¶12The position that emerges der 23, can be summed up thus :

only embodied the admission of ransfer of property in favour of e-existing rights as admitted by nce is placed on Som Dev and O 303, wherein the Hon'ble supre hat a decree or order of a cour f clauses (b) and (c) of Section 17 ed, and even a compromise dec less, of course, it takes in a subject matter of the suit. " lant's contention that the low 3A CPC. It is well settled that o ompromise between the parties, e only remedy available is to m omise. Even if the plea was bar under Order 23 Rule 3A C the pleadings. The learned low d any error in holding that ree was not maintainable. It is h Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Smt. Sadh ivil) 479, para 12 that : from the amended provisions :

- Ors. eme rt is 7(1) cree any wer nce ove not CPC wer held hna

(i) to t

(ii) del

(iii) dec

(iv) unl an

25.

evidence of pos without merit. M unless they are did not examin moreover, the r The oral eviden witnesses contr credible proof o

26.

As alleged, in lieu The existence o had voluntarily No appeal is maintainable again the specific bar contained in sect No appeal is maintainable agai e compromise (or refusing to rec letion of clause (m) Rule 1 Order ) No independent suit can be fi cree on the ground that the com e bar contained in Rule 3A. ) A consent decree operates as a less it is set aside by the court w order on an application under th e appellant's argument that th ssession, such as electricity bil Mere exhibition of documents is duly proved by the person main ne any official witness to au revenue entries consistently show nce led by the plaintiff was inc adicted his claim of possession of cultivation by the plaintiff. regards the plea that no compen of the alleged family settlement r absence of monetary compens admitted the transfer in the earli

nst a consent decree having reg tion 96(3) CPC. inst the order of the court record cord a compromise) in view of r 43. led for setting aside a comprom mpromise was not lawful in view an estoppel and is valid and bind which passed the consent decree, he proviso to Rule 3 Order 23.'' he lower appellate court igno lls (Ex.P11 to Ex.P40), is equa s not sufficient proof of possess ntaining such records. The plain uthenticate these documents, w the possession of the defenda consistent and unreliable. His o n and were unable to produce nsation was given to the plaintif t, this argument is also of no av ation is irrelevant once the plain ier proceedings. The admission

- gard ding f the mise w of ding , by ored ally sion ntiff ant. own any ff as vail.

compromise dul proven fraud, w

27.

afresh, recorded or misrepresenta and binding upo

28.

For merit. The judgm District Judge, J

29.

Pen

November 04, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh ly recorded by the competent c which has not been established he e learned lower appellate court d detailed findings that the plaint ation, and rightly held that the d on the parties. No other point wa r the foregoing reasons, the ap ment and decree dated 27.01.199 Jagadhri, are affirmed. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

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

court are binding unless vitiated ere. t has examined the entire mate tiff failed to prove the plea of fr decree dated 29.04.1988 was law s raised before this Court. ppeal is dismissed being devoid 99 passed by the learned Additio stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o

- d by erial aud wful d of