(O&M)Smt. Ramde Vs Lakhi

T h e plaintiff is the appellant befor e this Court, who has challenge d the judgment and d ecree dated 26.04.1995 passe d by the learned Additional Di s trict Judge, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the 1^st A ppellate Court), whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 namely Lakhi against the judg m ent and decree da t ed 14.06.1991 passed by the l earned Sub Judge 1^st Class, H ansi (hereinafter re f erred to as the learned trial Court) decreeing the suit of the appellant-plain t iff, has been allowed and the s u it of the appellant-plaintiff has b een dismissed.

¶16

F o r the sake of convenience, the parties are being described i n the manner in whi c h they were before the learned T rial Court.

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶18

RSA-1318-1995 (O&M) -2 -

¶19

B r ief facts of the case are that the dispute concerned agricultural l and measuring 16 K anals 16 Marlas, being 1/16^th s h are out of total land measuring 268 Kanals 16 Mar l as, comprised in Khewat No.9 9 , Khatuni No.166, as per Jamabandi for the year 1 9 80–81, situated in Village Kh a rkada, Tehsil Hansi, District H isar (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land” ) . The plaintiff, Smt. Ramde , an agriculturist an d resident of the said village, filed a suit seeking declaration t o the effect that she i s owner in possession of the af o resaid land by way of the judg m ent and decree dat e d 07.10.1986 passed by the Ci v il Court, Hansi in Civil Suit No.703 of 1986 titled a s Ramdev vs. Smt. Pataso etc. whereby Pataso, Khajani and Raj Kaur gave 3/3 2 share of their land in the afo r e-mentioned khewat to the plai n tiff and further see k ing the judgment and decree d a ted 04.08.1986 passed in Civil Suit No.526 of 19 8 6 to be declared void alon g with Mutation No. 1054 d ated 23.10.1986 bei n g illegal and having been obta i ned by fraud and misrepresent a tion and not bindi n g upon her rights. Conseque n tial relief of possession was also sought. When the plaintiff approached the ha l qa patwari for sanction of mut a tion based on the c o nsent decree dated 07.10.1986 p assed in Civil Suit No.703 of 1 9 86, she was infor m ed that 1/16^th share in the said k hewat had already been sancti o ned in favour of de f endant No.1-Lakhi, on the basi s of consent decree dated 04.08. 1 986 obtained by him in Civil Suit No.524 of 1986 from Pataso and Khajani, w ho admitted his c l aim upon the said property. U p on inquiry, the daughters, na m ely Pataso and Kh a jani denied having appeared i n Court, filed any written state m ent, or made any statement admitting the claim o f defendant No.1, and also de n ied having execute d any power of attorney or affi x ed thumb impressions. It was, t hus, alleged that th e said consent decree was frau d ulent and without authority. It was further pleaded that there was no family settle m ent between the parties. It was also

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶21

RSA-1318-1995 (O&M) -3 -

¶22

stated that othe r daughters, namely Phoolpati a n d Kela, had transferred their s h ares in favour of S a tbir and Satyawan by way of j u dgment and decree passed in C ivil Suit No.650-A of 1985. Hence, the plaintiff ins t ituted the present suit.

¶23

U p on issuance of summons, d e fendant No.1-Lakhi appeared and contested the suit by filing written state m ent wherein he took prelimi n ary objections qua cause of action, maintainability of the suit and estoppel. On m e rits, defendant No. 1 pleaded that there were five sisters of Satbir, Satyawan and defendant No. 1 -Lakhi. A family settlement w as arrived at between the pa r ties whereby two s i sters namely Pataso and Khaja n i had given their shares i.e. the suit property to de fe ndant No.1-Lakhi, which cul m inated into decree dated 04.08. 1 986 and Phulpati, R aj Kaur and Kela along with R a mde gave their shares to Saty a wan and Satbir. B ased on the decree dated 0 4 .08.1986, mutation No.1054 was sanctioned in f avour of defendant No.1 on 23.10.1986 of which the plaintiff had full knowledg e and thus, the subsequent jud g ment and decree dated 07.10. 1 986 was illegal and invalid.

¶24

D e fendant Nos.2 and 3 (Smt. P ataso and Smt. Khajani), de s pite service, did no t appear and they were procee d ed against ex parte. However, t hey later appeared as PW1 and PW2 in support o f the plaintiff during evidence. The plaintiff filed r e plication to the written stateme n t of defendant No.1, reiteratin g the averments mad e in the plaint and controverting those in the written statement. 6. O n the basis of pleadings, the l e arned trial Court framed 10 issues including relie f for adjudication. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW 3 and also examined Smt. K h ajani (PW1), Smt. Pataso (P W 2), DayaNand (P W 4), Satbir (PW5), Baldev Sin g h, Fingerprint Expert (PW6), and

¶25

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶26

RSA-1318-1995 (O&M) -4 -

¶27

Wazir Singh ( P W7). On the other hand, def e ndant No. 1 examined himse l f as DW1, along with Sh. J.C. Yadav, Advocate (D W 2), and Chattar Singh (DW3). 7. T h e learned trial Court, upon a p preciation of the oral as we l l as documentary e vidence, decreed the suit v ide judgment and decree d ated 14.06.1991. A g grieved against the said judgm e nt and decree passed by the lea r ned trial Court, de f endant No.1 preferred the app e al before the learned 1^st Appellate Court, which v i de judgment and decree dated 2 6.04.1995, allowed the same w hile setting aside t h e findings of the learned trial C ourt and dismissed the suit o f the plaintiff. Henc e , the present regular second appeal. 8. L e arned counsel for the appell a nt contended that the impu g ned judgment and d ecree passed by the learned 1^s tAppellate Court is wholly ill e gal, perverse, and c o ntrary to the evidence on recor d , as the said Court had misread and misinterpreted t h e oral as well as documentary evidence and has wrongly reversed the well-reason e d findings of the learned tri a l Court. It was submitted that the appellant had d u ly proved her ownership and p ossession over the suit land o n the basis of judgm e nt and decree dated 07.10.19 8 6 (Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6), whereb y the daughters, nam e ly Pataso and Khajani, had tra n sferred their shares in favour o f the appellant, whic h fact stood corroborated by t heir own statements as PW-1 and PW-2. Further m ore, the owners of the suit la n d categorically denied any co n sent decree in favou r of respondent No.1 as they w ere not even in talking terms w ith him. Smt. Khaj a ni and Pataso also stated that they never appeared in the court, f iled any written stat e ment, appended any thumb i m pression on any statement, no r did they engage an y advocate. Even Chattar Sing h (DW-3) stated that since 198 6 his sisters were not on visiting terms with respond e nt No.1 and thus, his claim th a t he was having cor d ial relations with his sisters is t o tally false. Therefore, there was no

¶28

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶29

RSA-1318-1995 (O&M) -5 -

¶30

reason for the l e arned 1^st Appellate Court for d isbelieving the statements mad e by Smt. Khajani a n d Pataso (PW-1 and PW-2) and reversing the well-reasoned fin d ing of the learned t r ial Court that the consent decre e dated 04.08.1986 was obtaine d by fraud by respon d ent No.1.

¶31

It w as further submitted that the learned 1^st Appellate Court brazenly discarded the te s timony of PW-6, finger print e xpert, who categorically stated v ide his report Ex.P W 6/A that he compared the dis p uted right hand thumb impressions of Khajani and Pataso in the summoned file a n d their thumb impressions tak e n in the court, whic h did not tally. It was also argu e d that DW2, J.C. Yadav, Advo c ate, who appeared o n behalf of Khajani and Pataso in the suit filed by respondent N o.1 has categorical l y admitted that Khajani and Pataso were not known to him personally and t hey were introduced to him b y Mr. R.P. Dhamija, Advocate, w ho was the counsel of respondent No.1 in the suit. Thus, he prayed for setting asi d e of the judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court. 10. P e r contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended t h at a family settleme n t took place between him and his sisters Smt. Pataso and Kh a jani on the basis of which judgment and decree da t ed 04.08.1986 was passed in C ivil Suit No.524 o f 1986 titled as ‘Lakhi versus Smt. Pataso and Khajani’ . It was contended that a ll the said parties were real b r other and sisters and based o n the judgment and d e cree dated 04.08.1986, mutatio n No.1054 dated 23.10.1986 (E x .P2) was duly sancti o ned. The land in question mea s uring 16 Kanals 16 Marlas for m ed subject matter of the said decree and the same h ad never been challenged by P a taso and Khajani and thus, it has attained finality. It was further contended tha t the alleged judgem e nt and decree dated 17.09.198 6 obtained by the appellant in C ivil

¶32

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶33

RSA-1318-1995 (O&M) -6 -

¶34

Suit No.703 of 1 986 titled as ‘ Ramde versus Smt. Pataso and others’ has no leg a lity and validity in t h e eyes of law.

¶35

L e arned counsel for respondent No.1 further submitted that a fter passing of judgment and decree dated 07.1 0 .1986, the appellant instituted the present Civil S u it No.589-C of 1986 in Nove m ber, 1986 titled ‘ Smt. Ramde v e rsus Lakhi and othe r s’ , laying challenge to judgme n t and decree dated 04.08.1986 r ead with mutation N o.1054 dated 23.10.1986. It w as contended that in the said suit, defendants No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against ex parte and did not file any wr i tten statement and it was only defendant No.1 who contested the suit. Once Pataso and Khajani were proceeded against ex parte and d i d not file any written statement, the learned trial C o urt ought not to have given mu c h reliance to their testimonies, as it is settled law t hat evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into. It was also contended that the learned 1^st Appellate Court has rightly discarded the testi m ony of PW-6, fing e r print expert as the patterns of questioned and sample th u mb impressions w e re not clearly distinguishabl e in Ex.PW6/D1 and Ex.PW6 / D2. Once Pataso a n d Khajani had relinquished thei r share in favour of respondent N o.1, they could not subsequently suffer a consent d e cree in favour of the appellant . At the most, Pata s o and Khajani were affected by the judgment and decree d ated 04.08.1986, ha d there been any fraud played u p on them, however, by no stret c h of imagination, it can be presumed that appellant was affected in any manner. T hus, it was submitt e d that the impugned judgment a nd decree passed by the learne d 1^st Appellate Cou r t does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warra n ting interference by this Court.

¶36

I h ave heard learned counsel fo r the parties and have perused the paper book wit h their able assistance.

¶37

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶38

RSA-1318-1995 (O&M) -7 -

¶39

T h e edifice of case set out by th e appellant is that respondent N o.1 obtained the j udgment and decree dated 0 4.08.1986 by playing fraud and impersonating some other ladies as Pataso a n d Khajani in the Court. How e ver, DW2, J.C. Ya d av, Advocate has categoricall y stated in his statement that he had appeared for P ataso and Khajani in the suit f iled by respondent No.1 and f iled written statement on their behalf. The written s tatement was read over to them and they put their r i ght hand thumb impressions th e reon in his presence. It is com m on practice that i n such like cases where dec r ees are obtained on the basi s of admission, cou n sel known to each other are e n gaged by parties. Furthermore, had there been an y fraud played upon Pataso an d Khajani, there is no explan a tion brought forth a s to why they did not initiat e any criminal proceedings ag a inst respondent No.1, especially when they were no t in cordial terms with him. 14. In the plaint, the appellant assert e d that when she asked respondent No.1 to have t h e judgment and decree dated 0 4 .08.1986 set aside, he threaten e d to bar her entry i n to the fields and forcibly took p ossession of the suit property. T his assertion impli e s that the appellant claimed t o be in possession of the prop e rty. However, if sh e had indeed been dispossessed forcibly, as alleged, she would h ave been able to st a te the specific date of such di s possession, which she failed t o do. Accordingly, t h e learned 1^st Appellate Court ri g htly observed that respondent N o.1 was in possession of the suit land even prior to the decree being passed in favo u r of the appellant. E ven if, for the sake of argu m ent, it is accepted that Pataso and Khajani were n ot on speaking terms with resp o ndent No. 1, it remains unclear h ow and under what circumstances respondent N o.1 came into possession of the property, and w hy Pataso and Khajani did not initiate any proceedings to rec o ver possession. Th e uninterrupted and peaceful p o ssession of respondent No.1, t hus,

¶40

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶41

RSA-1318-1995 (O&M) -8 -

¶42

supports the in f erence that Pataso and Khajan i had consented to the decree d ated 04.08.1986 in h is favour. 15. T h e learned trial Court while d ecreeing the suit of the appe l lant heavily relied u pon the testimony and report o f PW-6, thumb impression ex p ert. Courts in vari o us judicial pronouncements h a ve observed that expert eviden c e is merely one for m of external evidence and must be evaluated alongside all other evidence in a case. Whet h er it serves as primary or corrobo r ative evidence depends on the sp e cific facts involved. T he opinion of an expert is ad m issible to assist the court on m a tters requiring scient i fic or specialized knowledge b e yond a judge’s ordinary experi e nce. However, such testimony is generally considered w eak because experts typically pr o vide opinions rather than direct facts. It is often o b served that experts can, somet i mes unconsciously, a lign their views with the interests of the party that engages them. W hile they may not i n tentionally mislead, their perspe c tive may become so influenced b y a particular viewpoint that, even when testifying h o nestly, they may struggle to pres e nt a fully impartial o p inion.

¶43

T h is Court has carefully examine d the report of the thumb impression expert, exhibit e d as Ex.PW6/A. It is notew o rthy that the expert identified the standard right t h umb impressions (RTIs) of Pat a so as S-1 and S-2, while S-3 a n d S- 4 were marke d as the standard RTIs of Kha z ani. However, in his analysis and reasoning, the e xpert compared S-3 and S-4 w ith the disputed RTIs in relati o n to Pataso, and S-1 and S-2 in relation to Khazani, ultimately concluding tha t the thumb impress i ons belonged to someone else. Clearly, due to this intermixing of standard thum b impressions, the comparisons w ere flawed and naturally result e d in a mismatch wit h the disputed impressions.

¶44

F u rthermore, this Court agrees w ith the finding of the learne d 1^st Appellate Cou r t that the appellant lacks locus s tandi to challenge the judgment and

¶45

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶46

RSA-1318-1995 (O&M) -9 -

¶47

decree dated 0 4 .08.1986. The right to contes t the said decree rested solely w ith Pataso and K h ajani, who neither chose to c h allenge it nor lodged any cri m inal complaint agai n st respondent No. 1 in respect o f any alleged fraud. 18. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou r t in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others (2023) SCC Online SC 875, questio n s of law are not req u ired to be framed in second ap p eal before the Punjab and Har y ana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribe d by provisions of Section 41 o f the Punjab Courts A ct, 1918.

¶48

A s an upshot, this Court finds n o illegality and perversity in the judgment and d ecree dated 26.04.1995 passe d by the learned 1^st Appellate C ourt and the same is upheld. Consequently, the reg u lar second appeal is dismissed. 20. Pending misc. application, if any, a lso stands disposed of.

¶49

	(A M	ARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE L)
May 05, 2026
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶50

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

(O&M)Smt. Ramde v. Lakhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Smt. Ramde v. Lakhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shakti Fertilizer and Chemicals Vs Shree Shakti Agriculture Store

Star Associates and Another Vs Vineet Sehgal

Pt Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Science Rohtak Vs Joginder Singh

(O&M)Sulochna Devi Vs Lakha Singh

Jagsir Singh Vs Harphul Singh

Dharam Singh Vs Dhan Singh etc.