Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

No Merit in Appeal Alleging Fraud in Obtaining Initial Judgment – Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration and joint possession, based on allegations of fraud and impersonation in prior legal proceedings. The bench, headed by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, found no merit in the appellant’s claims against the initial judgment and subsequent mutations.

 

The crux of the appeal in RSA No.3653 of 2018 lay in the contention that the initial judgment in Civil Suit No. 1105 of 1990 and subsequent mutations were obtained by fraud. The appellant, representing the deceased Dharam Singh, alleged impersonation in the earlier suit, a claim that was scrutinized at length by the High Court.

 

The dispute involved land ownership claims stemming from alleged fraudulent legal actions by the respondents. The appellant’s challenge centered on judgments and decrees passed in 1990 and 2003, accusing respondents of collusion and impersonation to secure favorable decisions. The matter had been dismissed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, prompting the current second appeal.

 

Concurrent Findings Upheld: The High Court noted the concurrent findings of the lower courts, observing that the appellant was a signatory to the compromised judgment in 1990 and did not raise any issues of fraud at that time.

 

Allegations of Fraud: Justice Sarin pointed out that no substantial evidence was presented to support the claim of impersonation or fraud in obtaining the 1990 judgment. The Court remarked, “There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the plaintiff-appellant did not bring the alleged impersonation of Jaila to the notice of the Court.”

 

Lack of Substantial Question of Law: The Court found no significant question of law arising from the appeal, thus finding no grounds to overturn the decisions of the lower courts.

 

Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of merit and substantial legal questions. The appeal was resolved in favor of the respondents, with the High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Date of Decision: 01.04.2024

Dharam Singh (deceased) through his LR vs. Ram Sarup & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News