CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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