RSA-1318-1995 IN T 106
Ramde (since dec Lakhi and others CORAM : HON Present: Mr for t Mr. Mr. for r Serv *** AMARINDER S 1. The judgment and de Judge, Hisar (her preferred by resp and decree dated (hereinafter refe appellant-plaintif dismissed. 2. For manner in which 1995 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA ce deceased) through LRs Versus
others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Navjyot Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Service of proforma respondents No ***
DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The plaintiff is the appellant before and decree dated 26.04.1995 passed b (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Ap respondent No.1/defendant No.1 na dated 14.06.1991 passed by the lea r referred to as the learned trial C laintiff, has been allowed and the suit For the sake of convenience, the p which they were before the learned Tr - PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DIGARH
RSA No.1318 of 1995 (O&M Reserved on: 23.04.2026
Pronounced on:05.05.2026 Uploaded on:06.05.2026
... Appellant
...Respondents
MARINDER SINGH GREWAL nts No.2 and 3 dispensed with. efore this Court, who has challenged assed by the learned Additional Distr Appellate Court), whereby the appe o.1 namely Lakhi against the judgme the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Han trial Court) decreeing the suit of t he suit of the appellant-plaintiff has be , the parties are being described in t ned Trial Court. (O&M) 2026
nged the l District e appeal udgment s, Hansi t of the has been d in the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1318-1995 3. Brie measuring 16 Ka Kanals 16 Marla for the year 198 (hereinafter refe agriculturist and effect that she is and decree dated of 1986 titled as Kaur gave 3/32 and further seeki No.526 of 1986 23.10.1986 being and not binding sought. When th based on the con she was informed in favour of defen obtained by him admitted his clai Pataso and Khaja or made any sta having executed alleged that the further pleaded th 1995 (O&M) -2- Brief facts of the case are that the d 16 Kanals 16 Marlas, being 1/16th sha Marlas, comprised in Khewat No.99, ar 1980–81, situated in Village Khark r referred to as the “suit land”). st and resident of the said village, file she is owner in possession of the afore dated 07.10.1986 passed by the Civil tled as Ramdev vs. Smt. Pataso etc. 3/32 share of their land in the afore r seeking the judgment and decree date f 1986 to be declared void along being illegal and having been obtain inding upon her rights. Consequenti hen the plaintiff approached the halq he consent decree dated 07.10.1986 pa formed that 1/16th share in the said kh f defendant No.1-Lakhi, on the basis o y him in Civil Suit No.524 of 1986 is claim upon the said property. Upo Khajani denied having appeared in C ny statement admitting the claim of cuted any power of attorney or affixe t the said consent decree was fraudu aded that there was no family settleme - t the dispute concerned agricultural la share out of total land measuring 2 o.99, Khatuni No.166, as per Jamaban Kharkada, Tehsil Hansi, District His nd”). The plaintiff, Smt. Ramde, e, filed a suit seeking declaration to t e aforesaid land by way of the judgme Civil Court, Hansi in Civil Suit No.7 etc. whereby Pataso, Khajani and R afore-mentioned khewat to the plaint ee dated 04.08.1986 passed in Civil S along with Mutation No. 1054 dat obtained by fraud and misrepresentati quential relief of possession was al halqa patwari for sanction of mutati 986 passed in Civil Suit No.703 of 198 aid khewat had already been sanction basis of consent decree dated 04.08.19 f 1986 from Pataso and Khajani, w y. Upon inquiry, the daughters, name ed in Court, filed any written stateme im of defendant No.1, and also deni affixed thumb impressions. It was, thu fraudulent and without authority. It w ttlement between the parties. It was al ural land ring 268 mabandi ict Hisar mde, an on to the udgment t No.703 and Raj plaintiff ivil Suit 4 dated sentation was also mutation of 1986, nctioned .08.1986 ani, who , namely tatement, o denied thus, y. It was was also PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1318-1995 stated that other d in favour of Satb Suit No.650-A of 4. Upo contested the su objections qua ca defendant No.1 defendant No.1 whereby two sist property to defen and Phulpati, Ra and Satbir. Ba sanctioned in fav full knowledge a was illegal and in 5. Defe service, did not later appeared as plaintiff filed rep averments made 6. On including relief herself as PW3 DayaNand (PW4 1995 (O&M) -3- other daughters, namely Phoolpati and f Satbir and Satyawan by way of jud A of 1985. Hence, the plaintiff instit Upon issuance of summons, defe the suit by filing written statemen qua cause of action, maintainability of No.1 pleaded that there were five No.1-Lakhi. A family settlement w o sisters namely Pataso and Khajani defendant No.1-Lakhi, which culmin ati, Raj Kaur and Kela along with Ram r. Based on the decree dated 04. favour of defendant No.1 on 23.1 edge and thus, the subsequent judgm and invalid. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 (Smt. Pa d not appear and they were proceeded as PW1 and PW2 in support of led replication to the written statement made in the plaint and controverting th On the basis of pleadings, the lear elief for adjudication. In order to prov PW3 and also examined Smt. Kha (PW4), Satbir (PW5), Baldev Singh - ati and Kela, had transferred their shar of judgment and decree passed in Ci f instituted the present suit. , defendant No.1-Lakhi appeared a atement wherein he took prelimina ility of the suit and estoppel. On meri ive sisters of Satbir, Satyawan a ent was arrived at between the part hajani had given their shares i.e. the s culminated into decree dated 04.08.19 th Ramde gave their shares to Satyaw d 04.08.1986, mutation No.1054 w n 23.10.1986 of which the plaintiff h judgment and decree dated 07.10.19 t. Pataso and Smt. Khajani), desp ceeded against ex parte. However, th ort of the plaintiff during evidence. tement of defendant No.1, reiterating t rting those in the written statement. he learned trial Court framed 10 issu to prove her case, the plaintiff examin t. Khajani (PW1), Smt. Pataso (PW Singh, Fingerprint Expert (PW6), a ir shares in Civil red and liminary n merits, wan and e parties . the suit .08.1986 atyawan 054 was ntiff had .10.1986 , despite ver, they The ating the 0 issues xamined (PW2), 6), and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1318-1995 Wazir Singh (PW DW1, along with 7. The documentary ev 14.06.1991. Agg trial Court, def Court, which vid setting aside the plaintiff. Hence, 8. Lear judgment and de perverse, and con misinterpreted the the well-reasoned appellant had dul basis of judgmen daughters, namely appellant, which PW-2. Furthermo decree in favour him. Smt. Khajan any written statem they engage any a sisters were not o was having cordia 1995 (O&M) -4- gh (PW7). On the other hand, defen g with Sh. J.C. Yadav, Advocate (DW The learned trial Court, upon app ry evidence, decreed the suit vid Aggrieved against the said judgmen , defendant No.1 preferred the appea vide judgment and decree dated 26 de the findings of the learned trial Co ence, the present regular second appea Learned counsel for the appellan nd decree passed by the learned 1st d contrary to the evidence on record, ted the oral as well as documentary e asoned findings of the learned trial duly proved her ownership and po dgment and decree dated 07.10.1986 namely Pataso and Khajani, had transf hich fact stood corroborated by the hermore, the owners of the suit land avour of respondent No.1 as they we hajani and Pataso also stated that they statement, appended any thumb imp e any advocate. Even Chattar Singh not on visiting terms with responden cordial relations with his sisters is tot - defendant No. 1 examined himself e (DW2), and Chattar Singh (DW3). n appreciation of the oral as well vide judgment and decree dat gment and decree passed by the learn appeal before the learned 1st Appella 26.04.1995, allowed the same wh rial Court and dismissed the suit of t appeal. pellant contended that the impugn stAppellate Court is wholly illeg ecord, as the said Court had misread a tary evidence and has wrongly revers rial Court. It was submitted that t nd possession over the suit land on t .1986 (Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6), whereby t transferred their shares in favour of t by their own statements as PW-1 a it land categorically denied any conse were not even in talking terms w at they never appeared in the court, fil b impression on any statement, nor ingh (DW-3) stated that since 1986 h ondent No.1 and thus, his claim that is totally false. Therefore, there was mself as well as e dated e learned ppellate e while it of the mpugned y illegal, read and reversed that the d on the reby the ur of the 1 and consent rms with filed , nor did 1986 his that he was no PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1318-1995 reason for the lea Smt. Khajani and of the learned tria fraud by responde 9. It w discarded the test his report Ex.PW of Khajani and Pa the court, which who appeared on has categorically personally and th was the counsel o the judgment and 10. Per family settlement on the basis of w Suit No.524 of 1 contended that al judgment and dec was duly sanction subject matter of and Khajani and alleged judgemen 1995 (O&M) -5- the learned 1st Appellate Court for dis ni and Pataso (PW-1 and PW-2) and r ed trial Court that the consent decree pondent No.1. It was further submitted that the lea testimony of PW-6, finger print exp x.PW6/A that he compared the dispu and Pataso in the summoned file and hich did not tally. It was also argued ed on behalf of Khajani and Pataso in rically admitted that Khajani and P and they were introduced to him by M nsel of respondent No.1 in the suit. nt and decree passed by the learned 1 Per contra, learned counsel for re ement took place between him and s of which judgment and decree date 4 of 1986 titled as ‘Lakhi versus S that all the said parties were real bro nd decree dated 04.08.1986, mutation N nctioned. The land in question measu ter of the said decree and the same had i and thus, it has attained finality. gement and decree dated 17.09.1986 - disbelieving the statements made and reversing the well-reasoned findi ecree dated 04.08.1986 was obtained learned 1st Appellate Court brazen int expert, who categorically stated vi disputed right hand thumb impressio le and their thumb impressions taken rgued that DW2, J.C. Yadav, Advoca taso in the suit filed by respondent No and Pataso were not known to h by Mr. R.P. Dhamija, Advocate, w suit. Thus, he prayed for setting aside ed 1st Appellate Court. or respondent No.1 contended that and his sisters Smt. Pataso and Khaja e dated 04.08.1986 was passed in Ci us Smt. Pataso and Khajani’. It w al brother and sisters and based on t tation No.1054 dated 23.10.1986 (Ex.P measuring 16 Kanals 16 Marlas form me had never been challenged by Pata ality. It was further contended that .1986 obtained by the appellant in Ci made by finding ained by brazenly ated vide pressions taken in dvocate, ent No.1 to him ate, who aside of d that a Khajani in Civil . It was d on the (Ex.P2) formed y Pataso that the Civil PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1318-1995 Suit No.703 of 19 and validity in the 11. Lear passing of judgm present Civil Sui Lakhi and others with mutation N defendants No.2 statement and it Khajani were pro learned trial Cou is settled law tha contended that of PW-6, finger impressions wer Once Pataso and they could not su the most, Pataso 04.08.1986, had imagination, it ca it was submitted Appellate Court interference by th 12. I ha paper book with 1995 (O&M) -6- of 1986 titled as ‘Ramde versus Smt. in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for respondent N judgment and decree dated 07.10.1 vil Suit No.589-C of 1986 in Novemb thers’, laying challenge to judgment tion No.1054 dated 23.10.1986. It wa No.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex and it was only defendant No.1 who c ere proceeded against ex parte and did al Court ought not to have given much aw that evidence beyond pleadings that the learned 1st Appellate Court h finger print expert as the patterns o were not clearly distinguishable o and Khajani had relinquished their s not subsequently suffer a consent dec Pataso and Khajani were affected by , had there been any fraud played upo n, it can be presumed that appellant w mitted that the impugned judgment an Court does not suffer from any il e by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for with their able assistance. - Smt. Pataso and others’ has no legal dent No.1 further submitted that af 7.10.1986, the appellant instituted t vember, 1986 titled ‘Smt. Ramde vers gment and decree dated 04.08.1986 re . It was contended that in the said su inst ex parte and did not file any writt who contested the suit. Once Pataso a nd did not file any written statement, t much reliance to their testimonies, as ings cannot be looked into. It was al ourt has rightly discarded the testimo terns of questioned and sample thum able in Ex.PW6/D1 and Ex.PW6/D their share in favour of respondent No nt decree in favour of the appellant. ted by the judgment and decree dat ed upon them, however, by no stretch llant was affected in any manner. Thu ent and decree passed by the learned any illegality or perversity warranti l for the parties and have perused t legality hat after tuted the versus 986 read said suit, y written taso and ment, the ies, as it was also estimony e thumb W6/D2. ent No.1, llant. At ee dated tretch of r. Thus, arned 1st arranting used the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1318-1995 13. The obtained the ju impersonating so DW2, J.C. Yada appeared for Pat written statement they put their rig practice that in admission, couns there been any brought forth as respondent No.1, 14. In th No.1 to have the bar her entry into assertion implies However, if she h been able to stat Accordingly, the was in possession the appellant. Ev Khajani were not and under what property, and wh possession. The 1995 (O&M) -7- The edifice of case set out by the judgment and decree dated 04 some other ladies as Pataso and Yadav, Advocate has categorically s or Pataso and Khajani in the suit fil tement on their behalf. The written sta eir right hand thumb impressions ther at in such like cases where decree counsel known to each other are enga any fraud played upon Pataso and as to why they did not initiate t No.1, especially when they were not i In the plaint, the appellant asserted ve the judgment and decree dated 04.0 try into the fields and forcibly took po mplies that the appellant claimed to he had indeed been dispossessed fo to state the specific date of such disp ly, the learned 1st Appellate Court righ session of the suit land even prior to th ant. Even if, for the sake of argume ere not on speaking terms with respond at circumstances respondent No nd why Pataso and Khajani did not i . The uninterrupted and peaceful pos - y the appellant is that respondent No ed 04.08.1986 by playing fraud a o and Khajani in the Court. Howev cally stated in his statement that he h suit filed by respondent No.1 and fil tten statement was read over to them a s thereon in his presence. It is comm decrees are obtained on the basis re engaged by parties. Furthermore, h o and Khajani, there is no explanati itiate any criminal proceedings again re not in cordial terms with him. ed that when she asked responde ed 04.08.1986 set aside, he threatened ook possession of the suit property. Th ed to be in possession of the proper ssed forcibly, as alleged, she would ha h dispossession, which she failed to d rt rightly observed that respondent No r to the decree being passed in favour rgument, it is accepted that Pataso a espondent No. 1, it remains unclear ho nt No.1 came into possession of t not initiate any proceedings to recov ul possession of respondent No.1, thu ent No.1 aud and owever, t he had and filed them and common basis of ore, had planation s against spondent atened to rty. This property. uld have ed to do. This property. uld have ed to do. ent No.1 favour of taso and lear how n of the recover thus, PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1318-1995 supports the infe 04.08.1986 in his 15. The heavily relied up Courts in variou merely one form o in a case. Whether facts involved. Th requiring scientifi However, such tes opinions rather t unconsciously, ali they may not inte particular viewpoi fully impartial opi 16. Th expert, exhibited standard right thu 4 were marked reasoning, the ex Pataso, and S-1 thumb impressio standard thumb i a mismatch with 17. Furt Appellate Court 1995 (O&M) -8- e inference that Pataso and Khajani h in his favour. The learned trial Court while dec lied upon the testimony and report of various judicial pronouncements hav form of external evidence and must be e hether it serves as primary or corroborat ed. The opinion of an expert is admis cientific or specialized knowledge bey uch testimony is generally considered we ther than direct facts. It is often ob ly, align their views with the interests o ot intentionally mislead, their perspecti iewpoint that, even when testifying hon ial opinion. This Court has carefully examined t hibited as Ex.PW6/A. It is notewort ght thumb impressions (RTIs) of Patas rked as the standard RTIs of Khaza the expert compared S-3 and S-4 wit 1 and S-2 in relation to Khazan ressions belonged to someone else. C umb impressions, the comparisons we with the disputed impressions. Furthermore, this Court agrees wi Court that the appellant lacks locus sta - ajani had consented to the decree dat ile decreeing the suit of the appella ort of PW-6, thumb impression expe ts have observed that expert evidence st be evaluated alongside all other eviden oborative evidence depends on the speci admissible to assist the court on matt e beyond a judge’s ordinary experien red weak because experts typically prov n observed that experts can, sometim rests of the party that engages them. Wh rspective may become so influenced by honestly, they may struggle to presen ined the report of the thumb impressi teworthy that the expert identified t f Pataso as S-1 and S-2, while S-3 and Khazani. However, in his analysis a 4 with the disputed RTIs in relation hazani, ultimately concluding that t else. Clearly, due to this intermixing ons were flawed and naturally resulted es with the finding of the learned cus standi to challenge the judgment a ree dated appellant n expert. idence is evidence e specific matters perience. y provide metimes m. While ced by a present a pression ified the 3 and S- lysis and lation to that the ixing of sulted in arned 1st ment and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1318-1995 decree dated 04. Pataso and Khaj complaint agains 18. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (201 (2019) 17 SCC Singh (dead) thr law are not requi High Court whos Punjab Courts Ac 19. As judgment and de and the same is 20. Pend May 05, 2026 Pankaj* 1995 (O&M) -9- ed 04.08.1986. The right to contest t Khajani, who neither chose to chal against respondent No. 1 in respect of In view of the judgments passed b i (Dead) through Legal Represent (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dea ) through LRs and others (2023) S t required to be framed in second appe t whose jurisdiction is circumscribed urts Act, 1918. As an upshot, this Court finds no and decree dated 26.04.1995 passed b upheld. Consequently, the regula Pending misc. application, if any, als (AM Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable - ntest the said decree rested solely w o challenge it nor lodged any crimin ect of any alleged fraud. ssed by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour sentatives and others Vs. Chandri aur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and othe (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurchar 23) SCC Online SC 875, questions d appeal before the Punjab and Harya ribed by provisions of Section 41 of t nds no illegality and perversity in t ssed by the learned 1st Appellate Co regular second appeal is dismissed. ny, also stands disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No lely with criminal Court in ndrika others charan stions of Haryana 41 of the y in the te Court sed. EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh