Krishna Ram Vs Ajay Kumar

Present: M r . Rajinder Goel, Advocate and M r . Purusharth Dhull, Advocate fo r the appellants. M r . Amit Jain, Senior Advocate as s isted by M s . Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

-.-

¶13

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

¶14

Th e present Regular Second App e al has been filed by the appell a nt– plaintiff Krishn a Ram against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1999 passe d by the learned Ad d itional District Judge, Jagadhri , whereby the judgment and de c ree dated 14.05.19 9 7 passed by the learned Senio r Sub Judge, Jagadhri in a suit for declaration, we r e reversed.

¶15

Brief Facts

¶16

Th e brief facts of the case are th a t the plaintiff Krishna Ram fil e d a suit for declar a tion to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 27 k anals 17 marlas and 1/6th sha r e of land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas, situate d within the revenue estate of village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jaga d hri, District Yamuna Nagar, with all rights appurt e nant thereto in Shamlat Deh e tc.,

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

and further sou g ht a declaration to the effect t hat the judgment and decree d a ted 29.04.1988 pas s ed in favour of the defendant i n Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 ti t led “ Ajay Kumar v s . Krishna Ram ” by the Court of Shri M.L. Bansal, the then S ub Judge, Ist Class , Jagadhri, is illegal, null and vo i d, ineffective and not binding u p on the rights of the plaintiff. It was also prayed tha t mutation No. 844 attested by A .C. II Grade, Jaga d hri, on 22.07.1988 in pursua n ce of the said decree and fur t her entries regardi n g ownership and possession b ased on the said decree are a lso illegal, null and void, and that a decree fo r permanent injunction be pa s sed restraining the d efendant from interfering in t h e actual physical possession of the plaintiff over th e land in dispute.

¶20

Th e suit was filed against Ajay K u mar, minor son of Shri Babu R a m, through his father and natural guardian, Shri Ba b u Ram. Briefly stated, the plai n tiff alleged that he i s the owner in possession of the suit land mentioned above and t hat the defendant, b eing a minor, and his father h a ve no concern with the plainti ff or the land in dis p ute. It was further averred that in the year 1988, the father of the defendant, Bab u Ram, requested the plaintiff t o stand surety for him in orde r to secure a loan f r om the bank for the constructi o n of a pucca house. The plain t iff, being an illiter a te and old man, agreed to sta n d surety, and for that purpose, his thumb impressi o ns were obtained on certain pa p ers, which were said to be requ i red for the loan process. However, by playing frau d and misrepresentation, Babu R am and the defend a nt got a fraudulent decree fro m the Court regarding the suit l a nd. The plaintiff ne v er executed any transfer deed o r relinquished his ownership ri g hts in any manner . Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and the

¶21

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 3 -

¶23

consequential m utation No. 844 were the res u lt of fraud and misrepresentat i on, obtained with m ala fide intention and ulterior m otives. 4. Th e defendant, on the other hand, denied the allegations and asse r ted that the plainti f f is related to him, being the brother of his grandfather. It w as pleaded that th e re was no fraud or misreprese n tation, and that the suit land w as given to the d e fendant in a family settlement , in which the plaintiff volunt a rily filed a suit ad m itting the claim of the present d efendant. Based on such admis s ion and consent, th e decree was passed by the Cou r t, which was perfectly legal, v a lid, and binding up o n all parties, including the pre s ent plaintiff. The defendant fur t her stated that mut a tion No. 844 was rightly sancti o ned in his name in consequenc e of the decree. It w a s also pleaded that under the s a id family arrangement, the plai n tiff retained with hi m cash and jewellery in lieu of t he land given to the defendant. T he defendant furth e r contended that the decree dat e d 29.04.1988 was not compulsorily registrable, as i t was passed on the basis o f admission of the plaintiff in the previous suit. I t was also pleaded that sinc e the decree was passed with the voluntary cons e nt of the plaintiff, no permissi o n of the Court was required u n der the law on behalf of the minor defendant. T h e defendant further stated that the plaintiff has alr e ady been out of possession of t h e suit land since the passing o f the decree in 1988 , and therefore, the question o f any interference in his posses s ion does not arise. T he defendant also raised additi o nal objections that the present suit is barred by la w of limitation, res judicata, tha t the plaintiff has no locus stan d i to file the present s uit, and that the same is not ma i ntainable in the present form. 5. Re p lication was filed, wherein the plaintiff reiterated his earlier st a nd, denying the averments made in the written state m ent.

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 4 -

¶26

O n the pleadings of the parties, th e following issues were framed v ide order dated 14. 0 5.1992:

¶27

Whether the plaintiff is ow n er in possession of the suit lan d as de t ailed in the headnote of the pl a int with all the rights appurte n ant thereto in shamlat deh etc.? OPP

¶28

Whether the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passe d in fa v our of the defendant in Civil S uit No. 45 of 1988 titled as A jay K u mar vs. Krishna Ram with res p ect to the suit land is illegal, n ull, vo i d, ineffective and not binding u p on the rights of the plaintiff? O P P 3. Whether mutation No. 844 attested in favour of the defen d ant by A.C. II Grade, Jagadhri on 22 . 07.1988 pursuant to the impug n ed de c ree and further entries wit h respect to the ownership and po s session on the basis of the said d ecree in the name of the defen d ant are also illegal, null and void, in e ffective and not binding upon the rig h ts of the plaintiff? OPP

¶29

Whether the defendant is illegally interfering in the ac t ual ph y sical possession of the plain t iff over the suit land by wa y of ali e nation? OPP

¶30

Whether the suit is barred b y the principle of res judicata? O P D 6. Whether the suit is not main t ainable? OPD

¶31

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present s u it? O P D

¶32

Whether the suit is barred b y limitation? OPD

¶33

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 5 -

¶35

Whether the answering de f endant is entitled to special c o sts un d er Section 35-A CPC, the su i t of the plaintiff being false and fri v olous? OPD

¶36

Relief.

¶37

Findings of the trial Court

¶38

Th e trial Court, after examining t h e oral and documentary evide n ce, came to the co n clusion that the plaintiff Krishn a Ram was the owner in posses s ion of the suit land along with all rights appurten a nt thereto. The Court held that the judgment and d ecree dated 29.04.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 ti t led Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram was obtained by w ay of fraud and misrepresentat i on. It was found t h at the plaintiff, being an old a nd illiterate man, was induced by Babu Ram, father of the minor defendant, to af fi x his thumb impressions on cer t ain documents und e r the pretext of standing suret y for a bank loan. However, t h ose papers were lat e r misused to procure a consent decree in favour of the minor. T he Court observed that the alleged family settlem e nt forming the basis of that de c ree was a concocte d story and that the suit propert y was the self-acquired propert y of the plaintiff. S i nce the defendant Ajay Kum a r had no pre-existing right in the property, there could be no valid family s ettlement, as such arrangem e nts presuppose exi s ting rights in favour of all pa r ties. The earlier decree, theref o re, was held to be c ollusive, fictitious, and a prod u ct of fraud, making it null and v oid in the eyes of law. Consequently, the mutati o n sanctioned on the basis of t hat decree was als o declared illegal, ineffective, a n d not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It wa s further held that the plaintiff continued to remain in cultiva t ing possession of t h e suit land, and the defendan t , through his father, was illeg a lly

¶39

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 6 -

¶41

attempting to i n terfere in that possession by re l ying on the fraudulent decree. T he Court accepted t he plaintiff’s evidence that the c ause of action arose only when the defendant start e d asserting ownership and thr e atened to dispossess the plain t iff, and therefore, t he suit was filed within limit a tion. The objections raised by the defendant regar d ing res judicata, locus standi, an d maintainability were rejecte d on the ground that the earlier decree being void a n d fraudulent could not bar a f r esh suit, and the pl a intiff, being in possession, was fully competent to seek declara t ion and injunction.

¶42

Ac c ordingly, the trial Court decre e d the suit on 14.05.1997, decla r ing that the judgm e nt and decree dated 29.04.198 8 and mutation No. 844 atteste d on its basis were illegal, null, and void, and n o t binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant was permanently r e strained from interfering in the peaceful posses s ion of the plaintiff over the suit land or alienating it in any man n er.

¶43

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

¶44

Th e lower appellate Court, after r e appreciating the evidence and the reasoning of th e trial Court, reversed the findi n gs primarily on the ground that the plaintiff Krish n a Ram had voluntarily suffere d the decree dated 29.04.1988 and failed to establish any element of fraud or mis r epresentation. It was observed t hat the plaintiff hi m self had admitted in his testi m ony that he had appeared in C o urt and suffered th e decree in favour of Ajay Kumar. His subsequent explanation t hat he was deceive d into putting his thumb impre s sions under the pretext of stan d ing surety for a loa n was found inconsistent and u n reliable. The appellate Court n o ted contradictions i n the plaintiff’s evidence and fo u nd that his conduct and admiss i ons in the earlier su i t clearly showed conscious part i cipation, not deception.

¶45

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 7 -

¶47

Th e Court held that there was no c r edible evidence to prove that Babu Ram, father of the minor defendant, had play e d any fraud. The statement of the plaintiff’s own witnesses was found contra d ictory, and the testimony of the advocate who drafted the earlier compromise showed that Krishna Ram h ad admitted the co n tents of the written statement a n d compromise after understan d ing them. The Cour t observed that once the plaintif f had admitted the facts forming the basis of the earlier decree, he was estopped fro m later denying them. It was fur t her held that the d e cree in question did not requir e registration as it merely affir m ed the rights adm i tted by the parties and did n o t create new rights in immov a ble property for the first time.

¶48

Th e appellate Court also observed that the possession of the suit land was rightly ref l ected in the revenue record i n the name of the defendant A jay Kumar and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his continued possession. The p lea of limitation ra i sed by the appellant was also fo und to have merit, as the suit w as filed nearly fo u r years after the 1988 decree. Consequently, it was held that the findings of the trial Court on issues of frau d , ownership, and possession w ere unsustainable. T he lower appellate Court th e refore declared the decree d a ted 29.04.1988 to b e valid and binding, set aside t h e judgment and decree of the t rial Court, and dis m issed the suit of Krishna Ram. 12. Fe e ling aggrieved, the appellan t -Krishna Ram has preferred the present appeal, w hich upon notice is contested b y the respondent. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant

¶49

Le a rned counsel for the appellant – plaintiff Krishna Ram has arg u ed that the judgme n t and decree passed by the lear n ed lower appellate Court rever s ing

¶50

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 8 -

¶52

the well-consid e red judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and evidenc e on record. It is su b mitted that the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit by hol d ing that the decr e e dated 29.04.1988 was o b tained by way of fraud and misrepresentati o n and that the same was a nul l ity in the eyes of law. The lear n ed lower appellate Court erred in ignoring settle d legal principles and the mat e rial evidence broug h t on record by the plaintiff.

¶53

Le a rned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judg m ent of the Hon’ble S upreme Court in Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and Others, AIR 1996 SC 196 , to contend that where a rig h t in immovable property is cre a ted for the first ti m e, the decree requires registrati o n. In the present case, admitte d ly, the defendant had no pre-existing right in the s uit property; therefore, the alle g ed family settleme n t forming the basis of the 1988 decree was without foundation and could not trans fe r ownership in favour of the defendant. It is further argued that the case is fully c o vered by the ratio laid down in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and Others (AIR 1994 SC 853) a n d Smt. Badami (deceased) by her L.R. vs. Bhali (2012) 11 SCC 574 , wherein i t has been held that a judgmen t or decree obtained by playing fraud upon the Cou r t is a nullity and non est in the e yes of law, and su c h a decree can be challenged e ven in collateral proceedings. I t is further submitt e d that fraud vitiates all judicia l acts, and no estoppel can ope r ate against a perso n who has been a victim of fraud . 15. It i s contended that the learned l o wer appellate Court’s finding t hat the appellant h a d voluntarily suffered the decr e e is wholly unsustainable, as t h ere is nothing on r e cord to suggest that the plaintif f knowingly admitted the plead i ngs in the earlier s u it. The trial Court rightly hel d that the plaintiff was an old and

¶54

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 9 -

¶56

illiterate perso n who was misled into putting his thumb impressions on pa p ers under the prete x t of standing surety for a ban k loan, which were later misuse d to procure the dec r ee. The observation of the low e r appellate Court that the fraud w as not pleaded or p roved is factually incorrect, as t he plaintiff specifically pleaded the fraudulent con d uct of Babu Ram, the father of the defendant, and deposed to t hat effect on oath. Once fraud was pleaded and s upported by sworn testimony, the burden shifted u pon the defendant to disprove t he allegation, which the defen d ant failed to do.

¶57

It i s further submitted that the fi n ding of the lower appellate C o urt invoking the b a r of Order 23 Rule 3A CPC i s beyond the pleadings, as no s u ch plea was ever t a ken by the defendant in his wr i tten statement. The lower appellate Court therefore committed a jurisdictional erro r in deciding the appeal on a gro u nd not raised by th e parties. It is also urged that th e observation of the lower appel l ate Court that the d ecree did not require registrati o n is contrary to the settled posi t ion of law laid do w n in Bhoop Singh’s case (supra) . The learned counsel fur t her relied on Ex.P- 1 1 to P-40 (electricity bills and r e ceipts), which were duly prod u ced before the trial Court, to show that the tubew e ll in the suit property stood in the name of Krish n a Ram and that he was payi n g the electricity charges, thereby proving his con t inued possession over the suit p roperty. 17. Th e appellant’s counsel further pointed out that the case of the defendant that K rishna Ram was duly compe n sated in lieu of the land alleg e dly given to the d e fendant stands falsified by t h e testimony of DW4, Babu R am himself, who admitted in cross-examination t h at nothing was given to Kris h na Ram in exchan g e for the alleged family settle m ent and that he never accompa n ied

¶58

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 10 -

¶60

Krishna Ram t o the Court at the time the de c ree was passed. These admissions clearly prove t h at the decree in favour of the minor defendant was obtained by fraud and misre p resentation. The lower appella t e Court, therefore, erred in hol d ing otherwise, and t he impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶61

Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent

¶62

O n the other hand, learned couns e l for the respondent–defendant has supported the j u dgment of the lower appellat e Court, contending that it is w ellreasoned and based on proper appreciation o f evidence. It is argued that in the previous suit filed on 27.01.1988, the plaintiff K rishna Ram himself filed a wri t ten statement (Ex. D 1) admitting the claim of t h e defendant and also execute d a compromise (E x .D2) before the Court, where t he statements of both parties w ere duly recorded ( E x.D3). Therefore, the decree d ated 29.04.1988 was passed on the voluntary admi s sion and compromise of Krish n a Ram and was perfectly legal and binding.

¶63

Th e respondent’s counsel further s ubmitted that under Order 23 R ule 3 CPC, once a compromise decree is passed, n o separate suit lies to challeng e it; the only remed y available to the aggrieved part y is to approach the same Court t hat recorded the c o mpromise. It is also argued t h at there is no specific pleadin g or evidence of fra u d on record, as the plaintiff ha s failed to produce any indepen d ent or convincing m aterial to substantiate his claim . The electricity bills relied upo n by the appellant w e re objected to at the time of t e ndering on the ground of mod e of proof and admi s sibility; mere exhibition of doc u ments does not amount to proof in law. The respo n dent further pointed out that t h e decree was duly acted upon, the land was mutat e d in the name of the defendan t , and the revenue records refle c ted

¶64

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 11 -

¶66

his ownership a n d possession. It was also argue d that the plaintiff Krishna Ram has since died and h as been substituted by his legal representative Lachhman Si n gh, who is a distan t relative, and hence the presen t proceedings are being prosec u ted by a person ha v ing no direct interest in the pro p erty. Lastly, it was argued that the plaintiff did no t provide any detailed particula r s of fraud in his plaint and that the trial Court faile d to record a specific finding su p ported by evidence on that issu e .

¶67

Findings of this Court

¶68

Af t er hearing the learned counse l for the parties and perusing the records of the c ourts below, I am of the consi d ered view that the present Reg u lar Second Appeal is devoid of any merit and is li a ble to be dismissed. The judg m ent and decree pass e d by the learned lower appellate court are well reasoned and b a sed upon correct ap p reciation of facts and law. The findings recorded by the trial c o urt were perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and have rightly been reversed by the learned first appellate court. 21. Th e principal contention raised b y learned counsel for the appel l ant that the decree d ated 29.04.1988 was obtained b y playing fraud upon the court and is therefore a n ullity cannot be accepted. The plea of fraud must be specific a lly pleaded and pr o ved by cogent evidence, as req u ired under Order 6 Rule 4 CP C . A bare allegation of fraud, unsupported by con v incing particulars or indepen d ent corroboration, c annot vitiate a decree passed b y a competent court. In the pre s ent case, the plaint i ff himself admitted during his s tatement before the trial court t hat he had appeare d in court and suffered the dec r ee in favour of the defendant. T he plea now sou g ht to be raised that he was deceived into putting his th u mb impressions un d er the pretext of standing su r ety for a loan is an afterthou g ht,

¶69

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 12 -

¶71

inconsistent wi t h his own earlier conduct. The courts have repeatedly held th a t a person who h a s consciously participated in p roceedings and admitted a cl a im cannot later tur n around to challenge the decree on vague allegations of deceit. 22. Th e reliance placed by the app e llant upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and Others and Smt. Badami (deceased) by her L.R. vs. Bhali is misplaced. In both the s aid decisions, the f r aud alleged was clearly proved by withholding of vital docum e nts and deliberate suppression of material facts before the court. In contrast, the appellant in the present case has neither identi f ied any such material conceal m ent nor produced a n y independent evidence to sh o w that the defendant or his fa t her Babu Ram mis l ed the court at the time the ear l ier decree was passed. The ple a of fraud, therefor e , remains a mere assertion w ithout substantiation. The lo w er appellate court has rightly held that no eviden c e was forthcoming to suggest t hat Krishna Ram w as misled, and his own stat e ment in the earlier proceedi n gs, supported by t h e written statement (Ex.D1), c ompromise (Ex.D2) and recorded statements (Ex . D3), clearly establish that th e decree was suffered volunta r ily. Fraud no doub t vitiates every solemn act, b u t courts must distinguish bet w een genuine deceit a nd a belated attempt to undo o n e’s own conscious admission. T he present case falls in the latter category. Permit t ing such challenges would des t roy the finality of j u dicial proceedings and encour a ge litigants to renege on their o wn solemn underta k ings. The justice system canno t countenance such abuse 23. Th e next submission of the app e llant that the decree in ques t ion required registr a tion under Section 17 of the R egistration Act, 1908 also has no force. The lear n ed lower appellate court has co r rectly observed that the decree did

¶72

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 13 -

¶74

not create any n ew right for the first time but o nly embodied the admission of the plaintiff in the e arlier suit acknowledging the t r ansfer of property in favour of the defendant. Wh e re the decree merely affirms pr e -existing rights as admitted by the parties, it is not compulsorily registrable. Relia n ce is placed on Som Dev and Ors. Vs Rati Ram and Anr. 2006(4) RCR (civil) 303 , wherein the Hon’ble supr e me court, in para 1 0 held that :

¶75

“.... the position that emerges is t h at a decree or order of a cou r t is ex e mpted from registration even i f clauses (b) and (c) of Section 1 7 (1) of t he Registration Act are attract e d, and even a compromise de c ree co m es under the exception, un l ess, of course, it takes in a ny im m ovable property that is not the subject matter of the suit. ” 24. Eq u ally untenable is the appel l ant’s contention that the lo w er appellate court e rred in invoking Order 23 Rule 3A CPC. It is well settled that once a decree is pas s ed on the basis of a lawful c o mpromise between the parties, no separate suit lies to challenge the same, and th e only remedy available is to move the same cour t which recorded the compr o mise. Even if the plea was not specifically tak e n in the written statement, the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A C PC being statutory, it operates irrespective of t he pleadings. The learned lo w er appellate court has therefore not committe d any error in holding that the subsequent suit to challenge a compromise dec r ee was not maintainable. It is h eld by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Smt. Sadhna Rai vs Rajinder Singh & Ors. 2006 (3) RCR (civil) 479 , para 12 that :

¶76

“’ 1 2. The position that emerges from the amended provision s of Or d er 23, can be summed up thus :

¶77

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶78

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 14 -

¶79

(i) No appeal is maintainable agai n st a consent decree having re g ard to t he specific bar contained in sec t ion 96(3) CPC. (ii) No appeal is maintainable aga i nst the order of the court recor d ing th e compromise (or refusing to re c ord a compromise) in view o f the de l etion of clause (m) Rule 1 Orde r 43. (iii ) No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a compro m ise de c ree on the ground that the co m promise was not lawful in vie w of th e bar contained in Rule 3A. (iv ) A consent decree operates as a n estoppel and is valid and bin d ing un l ess it is set aside by the court w hich passed the consent decree , by an order on an application under t h e proviso to Rule 3 Order 23.’’ 25. Th e appellant’s argument that t h e lower appellate court ign o red evidence of po s session, such as electricity bi l ls (Ex.P11 to Ex.P40), is equ a lly without merit. M ere exhibition of documents i s not sufficient proof of posses s ion unless they are duly proved by the person mai n taining such records. The plai n tiff did not exami n e any official witness to a u thenticate these documents, and moreover, the r evenue entries consistently sho w the possession of the defend a nt. The oral evide n ce led by the plaintiff was in c onsistent and unreliable. His o wn witnesses contradicted his claim of possessio n and were unable to produce any credible proof o f cultivation by the plaintiff. 26. As regards the plea that no compe n sation was given to the plainti f f as alleged, in lieu of the alleged family settlemen t , this argument is also of no a v ail. The existence or absence of monetary compensation is irrelevant once the plai n tiff had voluntarily admitted the transfer in the earl i er proceedings. The admission and

¶80

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶81

RSA-427-1999 (O&M) - 15 -

¶82

compromise du l y recorded by the competent c ourt are binding unless vitiate d by proven fraud, w hich has not been established h e re. 27. Th e learned lower appellate cour t has examined the entire mat e rial afresh, recorde d detailed findings that the plain t iff failed to prove the plea of fraud or misrepresent a tion, and rightly held that the d ecree dated 29.04.1988 was la w ful and binding up o n the parties. No other point was raised before this Court. 28. Fo r the foregoing reasons, the a p peal is dismissed being devoi d of merit. The judg m ent and decree dated 27.01.19 9 9 passed by the learned Additi o nal District Judge, J agadhri, are affirmed.

¶83

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶84

November 04, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE

¶85

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o

¶86

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Krishna Ram v. Ajay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Ram v. Ajay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalip Kaur Vs Surjan Singh

Gurnam Kaur and Ors. Vs Jit Singh and Ors.

Babli Vs Pawan Kumar Sharma

Surajbhan Vs Luxminarian

Puran Chand Vs Sandeep Kumar and Another

Puran Chand Vs Sandeep Kumar and Another