Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 201 (PNJ)

Manjit Singh v. Bachna Ram

2010-01-11

MAHESH GROVER

body2010
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. The application is allowed as prayed for. 2. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 21.10.2008 and 23.1.2009 passed respectively by the Additional civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala ( hereinafter referred to as `the trial court) and the Additional District Judge, Ambala (described hereinafter as `the first appellate Court ). Narata Ram (since deceased) filed a suit for setting aside judgment and decree 20.1.1988 passed in Civil Suit No.914 of 1987 titled "bachna Ram and others Versus Narata Ram" being illegal,null and void and not binding on his rights. A consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed for. 3. It was alleged that a family settlement had taken place between the plaintiff and his sons,namely, Bachna Ram, Jyoti Ram and Dilbagh Singh (present respondent nos.1 to 3) in which the suit land was agreed to be transferred in their favour and in lieu thereof, they had agreed to return the loan amount outstanding in the name of the plaintiff and also agreed to pay maintenance amount to him and his wife and consequently, the decree in question was suffered by him. It was pleaded that since respondent nos.1 to 3 failed to comply with the conditions which were inherent part of the agreed family settlement, the same should be cancelled and the suit land should be directed to be returned to him. It was further pleaded that respondent nos.1 to 3 had alienated the suit land by way of sale deeds in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 without any legal necessity and that the loan amount of Rs.60,000/- was still outstanding against him which was not paid by his sons. 4. Upon notice, respondent no.1 had appeared and filed his written statement pleading therein that the instant suit had been filed in collusion with respondent nos.2 and 3 and that the decree in question had been suffered by Narata Ram out of his own free volition on the basis of family settlement and, therefore, he could not resile from the same. Respondent nos.2 and 3 had filed a separate written statement supporting the prayer of Narata Ram. 5. Respondent no.4 and 5, in their replies, pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers of the suit property for valuable consideration. Respondent nos.2 and 3 had filed a separate written statement supporting the prayer of Narata Ram. 5. Respondent no.4 and 5, in their replies, pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers of the suit property for valuable consideration. Besides, respondent no.4 averred that the plaintiff was present at the time of execution of sale deed and a sum of Rs.58,000/- was taken by him and that he was in cultivating possession of the suit property. Respondent no.5 has also taken a similar plea. 6. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1988 passed in Civil suit No.914 of 1987 titled as Bachna Ram etc. Vs. Narata Ram, is liable to be set aside being null, void, illegal and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff? If so, its effect?opp 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land? If so, its effect?opp 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?opp 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?opd no.1 5. Whether the suit is hopelessly time barred? If so, its effect?opd 6. Whether the suit has been filed in collusion with the defendants no.2 and 3? If so, its effect?oipd no.1 7. Relief. 7. During the course of proceedings, Narata Ram died and the present appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives. Both the Courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which has resulted in filing of the instant appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned judgments, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and there has been misreading of evidence. He, thus, contended that the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. The factum of family settlement was not denied. However, it was contended by the plaintiff that decree dated 20.1.1988 deserved to be set aside for the reason that respondent nos.1 to 3 had failed to comply with their part of obligation and further that the decree was not registered. I am afraid, it did not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to come and say that the decree required registration. I am afraid, it did not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to come and say that the decree required registration. The decree was passed on the basis of family settlement and in any eventuality, it did not create any right in favour of respondent nos.1 to 3. The conditions the violation of which the plainti9ff pleaded were not part of the pleadings before the Court nor were they shown to be a part of the family settlement. Besides, the decree was passed in the year 1988 and the suit was preferred after lapse of ten years which was clearly barred by the law of limitation. Looking it at from any angle, the plaintiff, who was a signatory to the consent decree, could not be permitted to wriggle out from the same in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation and that too, at a belated stage when the rights of third party came into existence on the basis of validly executed sale deeds in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5. In my opinion, the substantial questions of law as formulated by the learned counsel for the appellants in paragraph 15 of the grounds of appeal do not arise for consideration of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.