Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Entered Before Attachment Cannot Defeat Decree-Holder’s Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Presumption That Joint Family Possesses Joint Property; Female Hindu Absolute Owner Of Property Purchased In Her Name: Allahabad High Court Age Determination Must Strictly Follow Hierarchy Of Documents Under JJ Act: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Of POCSO Charges Once 'C' Form Declarations Are Signed, Burden Shifts To Buyer To Prove Payment Of Outstanding Dues: Madras High Court Section 213 Succession Act No Bar To Eviction Suit If Claim Is Based On Landlord-Tenant Relationship, Not Title Under Will: Bombay High Court Meritorious Candidate Wrongfully Denied Appointment Entitled To Notional Seniority & Old Pension Scheme: J&K & Ladakh High Court 6-Year Delay In Propounding Will & Hostile Attesting Witness Constitute 'Grave Suspicious Circumstances': Delhi High Court Refuses Probate Section 319 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised Based On FIR Or Section 161 Statements: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Of Unmarried Sisters Bail Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Recovery Proceedings; Court Can't Order Sale Of Accused's Property: Supreme Court Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim By Projecting Income Below Minimum Wages: Delhi High Court Recording Section 313 CrPC Statement Before Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witness Does Not Vitiate Trial: Karnataka High Court Murder By Unknown Assailants Is Not 'Accidental Death' Under Mukhymantri Kisan Bima Yojna: Allahabad High Court Section 311 CrPC | Court Not A Passive Bystander, Must Summon Material Witness If Essential For Just Decision: Rajasthan High 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