Bhola and Another v. Nandua and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
RSA-1948-2025(O&M) Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh; Regular Second Appeal dismissed by Pankaj Jain, J. (oral); fraud in obtaining decree dated 26.07.2000 (Exhibits P-1 & P-2); tenancy rights of deceased tenant Fakira; false claim that Fakira died issueless; surviving son Nandua as plaintiff; Kaincha father of defendants-appellants Bhola; concurrent findings of fact by Courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence; no interference warranted; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.
What did the court decide?
Learned counsel for the appellants was not in a position to dispute that the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2000 (Exhibits P-1 & P-2) was obtained by Kaincha claiming Fakira had died without any legal heir, whereas in fact he had surviving son-Nandua; fraud is thus evident on the face of the record. ¶¶11