TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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