High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Lali Devi v. Shyam Singh & Ors - RSA-4073-2003  RD-P&H 1760 (17 March 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No. 4073 of 2003
Date of Decision : March 17, 2006.
Lali Devi .... Appellant
Shyam Singh & others .... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
* * *
JUDGMENT (Oral) :
The plaintiff is in appeal. She filed a suit for declaration claiming that the decree dated May 21, 1994, suffered by her father Rampat, in favour of defendants-Shyam Singh and Sumer Singh (sons of Rampat), was illegal, bad and based upon fraud and mis-representation.
Consequently, she claimed that she was entitled to succeed to her share in the property left behind by her father-Rampat.
It may be noticed that Rampat was arrayed as defendant no.3 in the suit, which was originally filed by the plaintiff.
The suit was contested by defendants no.1 and 2. Rampat chose not to contest the suit. During the pendency of the suit, Rampat died.
Consequently, his name was deleted.
Defendants no.1 and 2 pleaded that the decree had been suffered by Rampat, on account of family settlement between the parties.
By way of aforesaid family settlement, the property in question had fallen to R.S.A.No. 4073 of 2003 : 2 :
the share of defendants no.1 and 2 and in recognition of the aforesaid family settlement, a decree was suffered, which had been done willingly and voluntarily by Rampat. They denied the practice of any fraud or mis- representation upon Rampat.
The learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
The defendants took up the matter in appeal. The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the decree in question had been willingly and voluntarily suffered by Rampat, on the basis of family settlement between the parties.
It was also noticed by the learned first appellate court that the plaintiff was married long time back and as such, Rampat had suffered the decree in question, in favour of his two sons. The plea taken by the plaintiff that there was a fraud and mis-representation practised upon Rampat, was also rejected by the learned first appellate court. The validity of the aforesaid decree was upheld. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
March 17, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.