JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.2002 rendered by the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 89-K/97 whereby an appeal preferred by the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for convenience sake) was partly allowed to the extent that the decree of the trial court holding that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) had become owner by way of adverse possession of the suit land was set aside, however, the judgment and decree to the effect that it has declared the judgment and decree rendered in Civil Suit No. 99/89 as null and void was upheld. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that according to the averments made in the plaint, about 35-36 years back, one Mangatu son of Tegu came to village Chari and started leaving with plaintiff’s sister Nihatu widow of Sh. Podu. Nihatu had constructed a house in Khasra No. 1710 and was living therein. Plaintiff, his brother and sister were also living with Nihatu. He was looking after Nihatu. Mangatu and his son Chamaru were also living there. Mangatu purchased land comprised in Khata No. 422, Khatanu No. 874, Khasra Nos. 1709 and area measuring 0-01-08 hectares Gair Mumkin Abadi situated in Mohal and Mauza Chari, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. He had constructed a house thereon. He alongwith his son started living in the house. Thereafter, about 30 years back, Chamaru left village and never came back again. Since Mangatu was quite old, plaintiff started living with him. In the earthquake of 1986, the house of Mangatu collapsed and destroyed. Plaintiff was in occupation of that house. He was given compensation of Rs. 1200/- by the State Government. Defendant No.1 Smt. Amriti never married with Chamaru nor ever lived with him. She never came into possession of the suit land or the house. She was wife of Basakhu Ram son of Panna, resident of Saddoon, Tehsil and District Kangra. Smt. Amriti Devi in collusion with defendant Nos. 2 to 6, as arrayed in the original suit, filed a Civil Suit No.99/89 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, titled as Smt. Amriti Devi vs. General Public. Amriti Devi in collusion with defendant Nos. Smt. Amriti Devi in collusion with defendant Nos. 2 to 6, as arrayed in the original suit, filed a Civil Suit No.99/89 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, titled as Smt. Amriti Devi vs. General Public. Amriti Devi in collusion with defendant Nos. 2 to 6 defrauded and misrepresented the Court by claiming falsely to be wife of Chamaru son of Mangatu which she never was. Plaintiff was never impleaded as defendant in the suit knowing fully well that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since the death of Mangatu. Learned Sub Judge 3rd Class, Dharamshala passed an ex parte decree on 30.12.1989 in Civil Suit No. 99/89 in favour of Amriti Devi. Mutation No. 502 was also attested in her favour on 23.11.1991. In the alternative, it was prayed that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Plaintiff came to know that Amriti has sold the suit land to defendant Nos. 2 to 6. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. On merit, it was stated that the plaintiff was not owner of the suit land, rather Amriti was owner of the suit land and she has sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.4, namely, Multan Singh. Nihatu had never constructed a house adjoining to land bearing Khasra No. 1709. This Khasra number belonged to defendant Nos. 2 to 5. There was no relationship of the plaintiff with Nihatu or Mangatu and Chamaru Ram was married to Amriti. They lived together. Chamaru had gone to Punjab in search of some job. He never came back. Mangatu father of Chamaru also died about 20 years back. Plaintiff was not collateral of Mangatu or Chamaru. Defendant Amriti started living in village Saddoon and left dilapidated house under the care of Mehar Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos.2 to 6. The house collapsed. Civil Suit No. 99/89 was rightly decreed. 4. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Dharamshala on 11.9.1992. She decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and Amriti Devi was not the legally wedded wife of Chamaru Ram. The house collapsed. Civil Suit No. 99/89 was rightly decreed. 4. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Dharamshala on 11.9.1992. She decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and Amriti Devi was not the legally wedded wife of Chamaru Ram. The judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge Class-III, Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 99/89 titled as Amriti Devi versus General Public decided on 30.12.1989 was the result of fraud and mis-representation and was null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. Defendants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1997 before the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala. He partly allowed the appeal as discussed hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on 23.12.2002 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in view of the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit brought by way of additional evidence before the learned Addl. District Judge, Dharamshala demolishes the case of the plaintiff in its entirety as he already stand adjudicated not to be in possession? 2. Whether without specifically alleging and pleadings qua the alleged fraud and misrepresentation and without an iota of evidence with respect to the fraud/misrepresentation, both the courts below erred in declaring the judgment and decree in civil suit No.99/89 as null and void stand vitiated and liable to be quashed and set aside? 5. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1989 rendered in Civil Suit No. 99/89 was binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not led any evidence that it was outcome of fraud or misrepresentation. He also contended that learned first appellate court has not decided the application filed under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the time of final hearing. 6. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Since both the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Since both the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. Learned Sub Judge 1st Class has framed issue No.2 as under: Whether the judgment and decree dated 30.12.89 passed by Sub Judge III Class (1) Dharamshala in civil suit No. 99/89 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff being a result of fraud, and mis-representation as alleged?” 10. PW-1 Puran Chand, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that Mangatu son of Tegu had come with his son Chamaru to village Chari about 37-38 years back. Nihatu was living in her house constructed in Khasra No. 1710. Mangatu has died 32 years back and Chamaru left the village before 5-6 months of the death of Mangatu. He has never come back. He started living in the house of Mangatu. Mangatu was his grand-father in relation. Amriti was not related to Chamaru. She has neither stayed with Chamaru nor with Mangatu. She never remained in possession of the house. Amriti was married to one Basakhu of village Saddoon. Amriti filed civil suit in collusion with Multan Singh. He has never received any summons. Amriti claimed herself to be wife of Chamaru and obtained decree in her favour. Mutation was also attested. He was not summoned at the time of attestation of mutation. Till Chamaru lived in Chari, he never married. Respondents have no concern with the suit land. They wanted to forcibly oust him. 11. PW-2 Rattan Chand has testified that Amriti Devi never resided with Chamaru. In his crossexamination, he has denied that after departure of Chamaru from village Chari, Amriti resided with Mangatu and after the death of Mangatu, she handed over the keys of house to Mehar Chand. In fact, PW-2 Rattan Chand is resident of village Chari. 12. PW-3 Amar Chand was the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Saddoon. He has deposed that in Panchayat family register, Smt. Amriti Devi has been recorded as wife of Basakhu Ram. They were living together for the last 35- 36 years. He has proved copy of family register Ex.PW- 3/A. In Ex.PW-3/A, Amriti Devi has been entered as wife of Basakhu Ram. PW-3 Basakhu Ram is an independent witness. 13. He has deposed that in Panchayat family register, Smt. Amriti Devi has been recorded as wife of Basakhu Ram. They were living together for the last 35- 36 years. He has proved copy of family register Ex.PW- 3/A. In Ex.PW-3/A, Amriti Devi has been entered as wife of Basakhu Ram. PW-3 Basakhu Ram is an independent witness. 13. PW-4 R.S. Rana has proved the copy of plaint in Civil Suit No. 99/89 Ex.PW-4/A and stated that it was drafted by him on the instructions of Amriti Devi. 14. PW-5 Jagdish Thakur was the Election Kanungo. He has proved the extracts from the Election Roll for the year 1983 of Shahpur Assembly as Ex.PW-5/A. In Ex.PW-5/A, at Sr. Nos. 289 and 290, name of Basakhu Ram son of Punnu and Amriti Devi wife of Basakhu Ram, resident of Saddoon are recorded as voters. 15. DW-1 Multan Singh has deposed that Chamaru was the owner of the suit land and after the death of Chamaru, his wife Amriti Devi became the owner. He has shown his ignorance about the marriage of Amriti with Chamaru and has deposed that his father had told him about the marriage of Amriti with Chamaru. He has also admitted that Amriti Devi was residing with Basakhu Ram and shown his ignorance to the fact that in what capacity Amriti Devi was living with Basakhu Ram. 16. Amriti Devi has appeared as DW-2. She has testified that her marriage was solemnized with Chamaru Ram at the age of 12 years. She used to live in the house of her Mamas and sometime in the house of Chamaru for 5-7 years. Chamaru went somewhere for job. He never came back. Her father Managatu remained alive for 10-12 years after the departure of Chamaru. She had gone there on his death and after his death started living in Saddoon in the house of Basakhu as a servant as he was having no children. In her cross-examination, she has stated that after the demise of Mangatu, she has not abandoned the suit land, but used to come occasionally and after the departure of Chamaru, she was living with Basakhu and she was voter of Saddoon village and used to cast her vote. She has not produced any witness to prove her marriage with Chamaru. In her cross-examination, she has stated that after the demise of Mangatu, she has not abandoned the suit land, but used to come occasionally and after the departure of Chamaru, she was living with Basakhu and she was voter of Saddoon village and used to cast her vote. She has not produced any witness to prove her marriage with Chamaru. She has not produced even her maternal uncle as she has stated that she was residing with her maternal uncle. In Civil Suit No. 99/89, Amriti Devi has examined Bhagwan Dass and Onkar Chand to prove the fact that she was legally wedded wife of Chamaru, but these witnesses have not been produced in the present case. These were the most material witnesses. 17. Plaintiff has never been served with any notice when Civil Suit No. 99/89 was instituted. He was also not summoned when the mutation was attested in favour of Amriti Devi. It cannot be believed that Amriti Devi had started residing in the house of Basakhu Ram as servant. In fact, there is plethora of evidence that she was married with Basakhu Ram and in the Pariwar Register, name of Amriti Devi has been recorded as wife of Basakhu Ram and in the voter list also, she has been shown as wife of Basakhu Ram. Evidence of DW-1 Multan Singh is hearsay as he has deposed that he was told by his father that Amriti Devi was wife of Chamaru. Plaintiff has duly proved that Amriti Devi has never married with Chamaru. He has also duly proved that Amriti Devi in collusion with defendant Nos.2 to 6 has concocted false story of her marriage with Chamaru and filed a false case and obtained a decree of declaration that she was legally wedded wife of Chamaru. 18. Mr. Ajay Sharma has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has not pleaded that the decree dated 30.12.1989 in Civil Suit No. 99/89 was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. 19. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala has drawn the attention of the Court to para No.13 of the plaint whereby it is specifically pleaded that Amriti Devi in collusion with defendant Nos. 2 to 6 has played a fraud on the court as well as the plaintiff by claiming falsely to be the wife of Chamaru son of Mangatu which she never was and the plaintiff was not impleaded as party. 2 to 6 has played a fraud on the court as well as the plaintiff by claiming falsely to be the wife of Chamaru son of Mangatu which she never was and the plaintiff was not impleaded as party. It is reiterated that the plaintiff has duly proved that Amriti Devi was never married to Chamaru. Plaintiff had started living in the house of Mangatu after the departure of Chamaru. He was also paid compensation by the State Government. Amriti Devi could not dispose of the land to defendants on the basis of decree rendered in Civil Suit No. 99/89, which was null and void. 20. Defendants had also filed an application under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adduce copy of judgment and decree dated 14.11.1996 in Civil Suit No. 132/93/91 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala and copy of judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 7-D/XIII/97. The application was contested by the plaintiff that Civil Suit No. 132/93/91 was filed for recovery. The application was allowed by the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 26.3.2002. The judgments and decrees were permitted to be taken on record and the same were exhibited. 21. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala has drawn the attention of the Court to judgment and decree dated 14.11.1996 rendered in Civil Suit No. 132/93/91. It is evident from the judgment and decree dated 14.11.1996 that the plaintiff had filed suit for recovery against one Sh. Multan Singh, Kalyan Singh, Chatur Singh and Baldev Singh. The suit was dismissed and the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 7-B/XIII/97 was also dismissed being incompetent. These two documents have no bearing on the present case. Merely that the application filed under section 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was decided on 26.3.2002, being not heard with the main case, has not prejudiced the case of defendants in view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove. 22. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 23. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.