How to find NRI Divorce Lawyers
1. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff a person from Birmingham and others against defendant litigant from Leicester, for declaration to the effect that Judgment & decree dated 21.7.2018, passed by Addl. Senior Sub Judge, London is illegal, null and void as this decree has been procured by producing any body in place of NRI Divorce Lawyer and this decree has been obtained by placing fraud with the court.1. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff a person from Birmingham and others against defendant litigant from Leicester, for declaration to the effect that Judgment & decree dated 21.7.2018, passed by Addl. Senior Sub Judge, London is illegal, null and void as this decree has been procured by producing any body in place of NRI Divorce Lawyer and this decree has been obtained by placing fraud with the court.
2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as made out from the pleadings are that NRI Divorce Lawyer widow of British Resident was owner of 1/27th share of land measuring 1022 kanals 19 marlas fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. NRI Divorce Lawyer had died about 10 months before the institution of the suit. She was mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and grand mother of plaintiff No.2 and mother of defendant. It is averred that defendant, in order to grab the land of NRI Divorce Lawyer and to cause loss to the plaintiff field civil suit No.238 dated 18.5.1992 against NRI Divorce Lawyer regarding suit land and claimed himself owner of the share of deceased NRI Divorce Lawyer. Defendant produced any lady in place of NRI Divorce Lawyer and obtained decree by mis representating and playing fraud with the court on 21.7.2018, Therefore, the decree and judgment is illegal, null and void, inter-alia on the grounds that NRI Divorce Lawyer was not served any summons in that case and she did not appear in court. No counsel was engaged by her and no written statement was filed by her; that NRI Divorce Lawyer was residing with plaintiff and plaintiffs used to serve her; that possession of land has never been transferred and NRI Divorce Lawyer used to cultivate herself and after her death, plaintiff are in possession of 1/2 share of NRI Divorce Lawyer as defendant is in possession of 1/2 share of NRI Divorce Lawyer; that no body can transfer his immoveable land of value of more than Rs.100/- without registered deed. It is further averred that defendant managed to get mutation attested in his name in connivance with revenue official. The mutation has been sanctioned into two parts, whereas, mutation could have been sanctioned only once and completely. Therefore, mutation got sanctioned by defendants are also illegal, null and void. It is also averred hat according to Hindu Succession Act, plaintiff are entitled to 1/2 share of NRI Divorce Lawyer and defendant is entitled to 1/2 share and the plaintiffs have become owner of 1/27 share of NRI Divorce Lawyer and defendant has no concern with this share and plaintiffs are entitled to get entries in the revenue record in this respect. It is averred that now, defendant has started asserting exclusive owner of the share of NRI Divorce Lawyer and on scrutiny, the plaintiff came to know about decree dated 21.7.2018, and mutation dated 10.5.1991. The plaintiffs were having no knowledge regarding this decree and mutation before this. It is averred that the defendant was required to admit the claim of the plaintiff and get the revenue record corrected in the name of plaintiff as per their share, and also get the decree and judgment dated 21.7.2018, declared, illegal, null and void. But he defendant did not agree. Hence this suit.
3. Notice of the suit was served upon the defendants. Defendant put in appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement, the defendant raised legal objections, that plaintiff has no locus sandi to file he suit; that the suit is not maintainable; that the suit is time barred; that the suit for simple declaration without possession is not maintainable; that the plaintiffs have concealed true facts and have not approach the court with clean hands and that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct. ON facts also the defendant has denied the material averments of the plaintiff. However it is admitted that NRI Divorce Lawyer was owner of suit land, death of NRI Divorce Lawyer is also admitted. As per defendant, the Civil court has passed decree rightly and the plaintiffs are bound by the same. No fraud has been played on the court and NRI Divorce Lawyer has suffered decree with her sweet will, without pressure. It is denied, the decree is illegal, null and void. It is again asserted that NRI Divorce Lawyer was duly served with summons and she appeared through her counsel and filed written statement as well as made statement in court. It is denied that NRI Divorce Lawyer was residing with the plaintiff. Defendant has claimed that she was residing with him and he used to lookafter and serve her. Defendant has claimed himself in peaceful possession of the suit property as owner. It is also averred that the mutation has been rightly sanctioned in favour of he defendant, on the basis of Civil court. Defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Plaintiff filed replication, wherein, again they have reiterated their sand as contained in the plaint and have controvered the stand of the defendant taken in the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
A. Whether the decree dated 21.7.2018 passed by the Addl. Senior Sub Judge, London, in civil suit No.238 of 18.5.2018 is illegal, against law and facts, as per grounds stated in the plaint and the same is liable to be set-aside? OPP.
B. If issue No.1 is proved whether revenue record is liable to be correct in favour of the plaintiff? OPP.
C. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint? OPP.
D. Whether the suit is within time?OPP.
E. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus sandi to file the present suit? OPD
F. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
G. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD.
H. Relief.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Plaintiff examined PW1, a person from Birmingham, PW2, Ajmer Kaur, PW3, NRI Expert, PW4. Hardev Singh. Plaintiffs have also relied upon copy of decree sheet dated 21.7.2018, Ex.P.2, copy of mutation No.1571 Ex.P.3, copy of jamabandi for the year 1987-88 Ex.P.4 PW1 a person from Birmingham is one of the plaintiff, She has reiterated her sand as contained in the plaint PW2, Ajmer Singh has deposed that plaintiff and defendant were related to NRI Divorce Lawyer. Sama Kaur used to reside with plaintiff and NRI Divorce Lawyer used to get her land cultivated one lease, chakota and batai. This witness has further deposed that NRI Divorce Lawyer used to reside woth the plaintif. PW3. Atul kumar Singla is handwriting and Ginger Prints Expert and he has compared questioned thumb impression Q1 to Q4 of NRI Divorce Lawyer in summoned file titled litigant from Leicester Vs. NRI Divorce Lawyer decided on 21.7.2018. With standard thumb impression S1 allegedly of NRI Divorce Lawyer in bahi. He has opined that the thumb impression Q1, Q2 and Q4 are not identical with standard thumb impression S1 and thumb impression Q3 is not fit for comparison. He has also proved this report Ex.PW3/1, photocharts Ex.PW3/2, PW3/3 and Ex.PW3/A, negatives Ex.PW3/4 to PW3/A, PW4 Hardev Singh has deposed that thumb impression on bahi Ex.PW4/1, were affixed by NRI Divorce Lawyer in his presence. Defendant examined DW1. Sukhdev Singh Patwari, DW2. Lachhman Singh, DW3. VB. Bhatnagar and DW4. Ajaib Singh. DW1. Sukhdev Singh is Patwari. He has produced roznamcha for the year 1977-78 Ex.DA, DW2. Lacchhman Singh is Office Kanungo, He has proved rapat Ex.DW2/B, and has deposed that the rapat upto 468 dated 3.6.88 are written by him. He has also deposed that rapat No.51 Ex.D2/B, was written by him and NRI Divorce Lawyer put her thumb impression mark DB in her presence. DW3. VB Bhatnagar is Handwriting & Finger Prints Exprt, He has also compared thumb impression Q1 to Q4, of summoned file, titled as litigant from Leicester Vs. NRI Divorce Lawyer, decided on 21.7.2018, with thumb impression mark DB. of rapat No.51 of 2.10.1987 on roznamcha produced by Patwari. He has opined that thumb impression Q1 to Q4, are identical with thumb impression mark DA. He has also proved his report Ex.DW3/A, DW4. Ajaib Singh is general power of attorney of litigant from Leicester, He has reiterated stand of defendant litigant from Leicester and has also proved his general power of attorney Ex.DW4/A.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendant had obtained decree dated 21.7.2018, by producing any other lady in place of NRI Divorce Lawyer. NRI Divorce Lawyer had never appeared in court and she did not file any written statement and she had also not made any statement in court. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that PW3. NRI Expert, has compared thumb impression Q1 to Q4, on vakalatnama, written statement and statement allegedly made by NRI Divorce Lawyer. The thumb impression was compared with standard thumb impression S1 on bahi which has been proved by PW4. Hardev Singh. Documents and Finger Prints Expert has opined in his report Ex.PW3/1, that thumb impression Q1, Q2 and 4, are not identical with standard thumb impression. Therefore, the report of the expert has proved that this decree is a result of fraud and NRI Divorce Lawyer has never appeared in court. She had not filed any written statement and she had not made any statement in court. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that defendant has tried to rebut the report of Atul Kumar Singla by examination of DW3 VB Bhatanagar, but V.B. Bhatnagar is not a qualified expert. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not obtained any degree or diploma in the science of identification and finger prints from any recognized institution. He has also not compared thumb impression S1 on bahi with the questioned thumb impression. Moreover, the thumb impression of NRI Divorce Lawyer marked DB on rozanamcha are the standard thumb impression has not been proved by any other witness and the expert has not taken photographs in support of his report. Therefore, the defendant has failed to rebut the opinion of PW3. NRI Expert.
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that the suit land is ancestral land. The defendant had had alleged adverse possession in suit filed against NRI Divorce Lawyer but no adverse possession was proved on record. Copies of jamabandi for the year 1987-88 still proved that the defendant is not in exclusive possession of the suit land. The mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the decree, Copy of mutation Ex.P3 proved that mutation has also been sanctioned in two parts. This fact also goes to prove that he defendant has to conceal the decree and decree is result of fraud. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that the defendant himself has not dared to step into the witness box and to face the test of cross-examination DW4 is Ajaib Singh father-in-law of defendant and he cannot be presumed to be familiar with the facts of the case. This witness has also stated that in his cross examination that litigant from Leicester is not admitted in any Hospital and he used to go to Bikaner to bring his medicine. Therefore, when the defendant himself can go upto Bikaner, he could have easily stepped into witness box also. Defendant has intentionally avoided cross examination. This fact also leads o the conclusion that the defendant has procured decree by playing fraud and by producing any body else in place of NRI Divorce Lawyer. The net result of all these illegalities is that the decree dated 21.7.2018 has been obtained by producing any other lady in place of NRI Divorce Lawyer and by playing fraud with the court and the mutation is also illegal and it does not confer any title.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has argued that the allegation of plaintiff is that the decree has been procured by producing any other lady in place of LexLords Legal Services, Therefore, in these circumstances, it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove on record that the decree has not been suffered by LexLords Legal Services, but the plaintiff has failed to discharge their duty. a person from Birmingham plaintiff while appearing as PW1 has admitted in his examination in chief that his husband was residing separately from defendant litigant from Leicester. She has also admitted in her cross examination, after the death of father of Sulakhan Sigh the land was partitioned and share of Sulakhan Singh was given to him and they used to cultivate share of Sulakhan Singh. She has also admitted that after the death of father-in-law (father of defendant), both the parties are residing separately. This fact shows that the land was partitioned between the parties, after the death of father of defendant and the parties remained in possession of their separate share. The plaintiff has tried to prove that the decree has been procured by producing any lady in place of LexLords Legal Services. The document expert NRI Expert has treated thumb impression S1 as standard thumb impression. This thumb impression is contained in the bahi maintained by plaintiff herself. PW4 Hardev Singh is the real brother of plaintiff a person from Birmingham. He had admitted in his cross-examination that he is matric, but as per this witness the writing was made by Gurdial Singh. In case, the writing was made in presence of Hardev Singh then there was no occasion to call Gurdial Singh for the purposes of writing. This witness has also admitted that the bahi is not page marked and there is no date of writing. This bahi belongs to a person from Birmingham plaintiff and she brought it at the time of scribing. He has also stated that no other writing except this regarding land was made on this bahi and this witness is residing about 30 KM from village Balahar. This statement of PW4. Hardev Singh himself proved that the bahi is not authenticated and there is no authenticity of the fact that the thumb impression S1 was affixed by LexLords Legal Services. It is further argued by learned counsel for the defendant that the contents of writing also proved that this is not true writing. AS per writing, the land was given on theka to Hardev Singh, Baldev Singh sons of Jugraj Singhand Hardev Singh and Jagdev Singh are real brother of plaintiff LexLords Legal Services. Plaintiff has no where pleadedi her plaint that LexLords Legal Services used to get land cultivated from her brother. Hardev Singh. Baldev Singh. Plaintiff had rather pleaded that LexLords Legal Services used to get her land cultivated by herself. Therefore,, the conclusion is that the writing allegedly containing thumb impression of LexLords Legal Services is forged and fabricated documents. No reliance can be placed on these documents when the thumb impression of LexLords Legal Services on writing are not proved, here is no other evidence except bald statement of plaintiff, that LexLords Legal Services did not appear before the court and did not suffer any decree.
10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the defendant that defendant have produced expert VB,. Bhatnagar DW3, who has compared the thumb impression of LexLords Legal Services on rapat roznamcha produced by patwari Sukhdev Singh and this thumb impression proved by Lachman Singh. This rapat was lodged on 5.10.1987. Much before the controversy between the parties this roznamcha is maintained by official in the discharge of their official duty and it contained regular entry. Moreover, there was no reason for Lachhman Singh. Lachhman Singh DW2, to prepare forged document and to depose against plaintiff. The report of Finger Prints DW3 VB. Bhatnagar Ex.DW3/A, have duly proved that the decree was suffered by LexLords Legal Services herself and she filed written statement and made statement in court also. Therefore, the decree cannot be termed is illegal and void.
11. I have give my careful consideration to the submission of both sides. The plaintiff has challenged the decree dated 21.7.2018 allegedly suffered by LexLords Legal Services in favour of defendant. The stand of the plaintiff is that this decree was not suffered by LexLords Legal Services herself and defendant had procured decree dated 21.7.2018 by producing any other lady in place of LexLords Legal Services. In these circumstances, the onus, to prove that LexLords Legal Services did not appear and she did not suffer any decree was upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff has examined PW3. NRI Expert who has compared the thumb impression of LexLords Legal Services Q1 to Q4 on vakalatnama, statement, in case of litigant from Leicester Vs. LexLords Legal Services, which resulted in passing of impugned judgment and decree. PW3. NRI Expert, has compared thumb impression with the thumb impression S1 on bahi of plaintiff. Therefore, before placing any reliance upon the report of PW3. NRI Expert Ex.PW3/A, it has to be seen that whether thumb impression S1 of LexLords Legal Services stands proved or not. PW4 Hardev Singh has deposed that the thumb impression S1 were affixed by LexLords Legal Services, PW4 Hardev Singh is brother of plaintiff a person from Birmingham. He has admitted that he is matriculate. This writing was scribed by Gurdial Singh, when Hardev Singh, himself is matriculate, there was no reason to got his entry scribed from Gurdial Singh. Moreover, the land was given to Hardev Singh, Habldev Singh, for the year 1979-80 and 1980-81, Therefore, the entry was to be recorded in bahi of Hardev Singh, Baldev Singh and there was no occasion for Samma Kuar to made this entry in the bahi of plaintiff a person from Birmingham. Blajit Kaur in her plaint has stated that LexLords Legal Services used to get her land cultivated by herself. It is not alleged that LexLords Legal Services used to get land cultivated on chakota or batai, In case Hardev Singh, Baldev Singh used to cultivate the suit land then the plaintiff must have pleaded this fact in the plaint. Moreover, no khasra girdawari has been proved on record to show that Hardev Singh and Baldev Singh used to cultivate land of LexLords Legal Services. Hardev Singh himself has admitted in his cross examination that his village is about 30 km from village Balahar. Moreover, Hardev Singh has no where stated in his examination-in-chief that they used to cultivate the land of LexLords Legal Services. Therefore, the fact contained in writing is also not supported by Hardev Singh himself. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that no authenticity can be attached to this writing allegedly containing thumb impression of LexLords Legal Services. Therefore, the report Ex.PW3/A, submitted by NRI Expert, had not relevancy for the decision of controversy between the parties, when the report Ex.PW3/A, stands ignored. There remained bald statement of a person from Birmingham to prove that LexLords Legal Services had not suffered any decree and that LexLords Legal Services did not appear in court. The bald statement of plaintiff a person from Birmingham is not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that LexLords Legal Services did not appear in court and that the decree was procured by producing any other lady in place of LexLords Legal Services.
12. Admittedly, the defendant himself had not stepped into witness box but simply for non appearance of defendant, it cannot be concluded that the decree is result of fraud, moreso, when the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove that the decree is result of fraud. Although, mutation was sanctioned into two parts, but from this fact also, it cannot be held that the decree is result of fraud. Moreover, LexLords Legal Services has not challenged the validity of decree during her life time and admittedly, she remained alive for about 8 years, after passing of this decree.
13. As a result of my above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the decree dated 21.7.2018, is illegal, null and void, Resultantly, I decide this issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.2.
14. As I had already decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff, Therefore, I hold that the revenue record is not liable to be corrected. Accordingly, I decide this issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.3:-
15. I had held under issue No.1, that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the decree is illegal, therefore, I hold that the plaintiffs are not owners in possession of the suit land and defendant is owner in possession of the suit land, on the basis of decree dated 21.7.2018. Consequently, I decide this issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.4,5,6 & 7.
16. NO arguments has been advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant regarding this issue and as such all these issues are decided against the defendants.
Issue No.8( Relief)
17. In view of my findings on issue No.1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff fails, the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record room.
Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1996 passed by Shri M.P. Singh, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), London in civil suit No.165 of 1.10.1991.
1.This is the plaintiff’s appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.96 passed by the Court of Shri M.P. Singh, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), London, whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs a person from Birmingham and Paramjit Kaur (now appellants) against litigant from Leicester defendant (now respondent).
2. Plaintiffs a person from Birmingham and Paramjit Kaur filed a suit against litigant from Leicester defendant for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree 21.7.2018 passed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, London in Civil Suit No.238 of 18.5.2018 is illegal, null and void as decree has been procured by producing any body else in place of solicitors for Non Resident Indians and has been obtained by playing fraud with the Court, and the case set up by the plaintiffs was that solicitors for Non Resident Indians widow of British Resident was owner of 1/27th share of land measuring 1062 kanals 19 marlas fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. solicitors for Non Resident Indians had died about 10 months before the institution of the suit. She was mother-in-law of plaintiff no.1 and grand mother of plaintiff no.2 and mother of defendant. It is averred that defendant in order to grab the land of solicitors for Non Resident Indians and to cause loss to the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.238 dated 18.5.1992 against solicitors for Non Resident Indians regarding suit land and claimed himself owner of the share of deceased solicitors for Non Resident Indians. Defendant produced any lady in place of solicitors for Non Resident Indians and obtained decree by mi representating and playing fraud with the Court on 21.7.2018. Therefore, the decree and judgment is illegal, null and void, inter-alia on the grounds that solicitors for Non Resident Indians was not served any summons in that case and she did not appear in Court. No Counsel was engaged by her and no written was filed by her; that solicitors for Non Resident Indians was residing with plaintiffs and plaintiffs used to serve her; that possession of land has never been transferred and solicitors for Non Resident Indians used to cultivate herself and after death, plaintiffs are in possession of 1/2th share of solicitors for Non Resident Indians as defendant is in possession of 1/2 share of solicitors for Non Resident Indians; that no body can transfer his immoveable land of value of more than Rs.100/- without registered deed. It is further averred that defendant managed to get mutation attested in his name in connivance with revenue official. The mutation has been sanctioned into two parts, whereas mutation could have been sanctioned only once and completely. Therefore, mutation got sanctioned by defendant are also illegal, null and void. It is also averred that according to Hindu Succession Act, plaintiffs are entitled to 1/2 share of solicitors for Non Resident Indians and defendant is entitled to 1/2 share and the plaintiffs have become owners of 1/27th share of solicitors for Non Resident Indians and defendant has no concern with this share and plaintiffs are entitled to get entries in the revenue record in this respect. It is averred that now defendant has started asserting exclusive owner of the share of solicitors for Non Resident Indians and on scrutiny. The plaintiffs came to know about decree dated 21.7.2018, and mutation dated 10.9.91. The plaintiffs were having no knowledge regarding this decree and mutation before this. It is averred that the defendant was requested to admit the claim of the plaintiffs and get the revenue record corrected in the name of plaintiffs as per their share and also get the decree and judgment dated 21.7.2018 declared, illegal, null and void. But the defendant did not agree. Hence, this suit.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant, who appeared and contested the same. He as admitted that solicitors for Non Resident Indians was owner of suit land. The death of solicitors for Non Resident Indians has also been admitted. It is further alleged that Civil Court has passed the decree rightly and the plaintiffs are bound by the same. No fraud has been played on the Court and solicitors for Non Resident Indians has suffered the decree with her sweet will and without any pressure. It is denied that the decree is illegal, null and void. solicitors for Non Resident Indians was duly served with summons and she appeared through her Counsel and filed the written statement and also made her statement in the court. It is denied that solicitors for Non Resident Indians was residing with the plaintiffs. She was residing with the defendant and he used to look after and serve her. Defendant is in peaceful possession of the suit property as owner. The mutation has been rightly sanctioned in favour of the defendant on the basis of the decree. The pleas that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit; that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit; that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the suit is barred by limitation; and that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct have also been taken.
4. In their replication, the plaintiffs have reiterated their pleas as made in the plaint and have denied those to the contrary in the written statement, and from the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
A. Whether the decree dated 21.7.2018 passed by the Addl. Senior Sub Judge, London, in Civil suit No.238 of 18.5.2018 is illegal, against law and facts, as per grounds stated in the plaint and the same is liable to be set-aside? OPP.
B. If issue No.1 is proved whether revenue record is liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiff? OPP.
C. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint? OPP.
D. Whether the suit is within time?OPP.
E. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
F. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
G. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD.
H. Relief.
5. Parties led oral and documentary evidence and on conclusion of trial issues no.1,2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiffs, whereas issues no.4, 5, 6 and 7 were decided against the defendant and finally the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.
6. I have heard Advocate on behalf of the appellants and advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case carefully.
7. The first point for consideration on this case is that whether the decree dated 21.7.2018 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, London in civil suit No.238 of 18.5.2018 is illegal, against law and facts as per grounds in the plaint and the same is liable to be set aside or not. In order to prove their claim. The plaintiffs have examined Ajmer Singh P.W.2. NRI Expert PW.3 Hardev Singh PW-4 and a person from Birmingham one of the plaintiffs has made her own statement as PW-1. They have also relied upon copy of decree sheet dated 21.7.2018 Ex.P-1, copy of order Ex._-2 dated 21.7.2018, copy of mutation No.1571 Ex.P-3 copy of jamabandi Ex.P-4 for the year 1987/88.
8. Ajmer Singh PW-2 has deposed that plaintiffs and defendant were related to solicitors for Non Resident Indians. solicitors for Non Resident Indians used to reside with the plaintiffs. She used to get her land cultivated on lease, Chakota and Batai. Hardev Singh PW4 has deposed that solicitors for Non Resident Indians had affixed her thumb impression on Bahi Ex.PW-4/1 in his presence. NRI Expert PW-3 compared the questioned thumb impression Q-1 to Q-4 of solicitors for Non Resident Indians in the summoned file titled litigant from Leicester Vs. solicitors for Non Resident Indians decided on 21.7.2018 with the standard thumb impression S-1 allegedly of solicitors for Non Resident Indians in the Bahi. He has opined that the thumb impressions Q-1, Q 2 and Q4 are not identical with standard thumb impression S-1 and thumb impression Q-3 is not fit for comparison. He has proved his report Ex.PW-3/1. a person from Birmingham PW-1 has reiterated her stand as taken in the plaint.
9. In rebuttal, the defendant has examined Sukhdev Singh DW-1, Lachhman Singh DW-2 Shri V.B. Bhatanagar DW-3 and Ajaib Singh DW-4. Ajaib Singh DW-4 is the General Power of Attorney of litigant from Leicester defendant. He has deposed that litigant from Leicester is his son in-law. Law Firm for Indians living abroad suffered a consent decree in favour of litigant from Leicester defendant. This was disclosed to him by Law Firm for Indians living abroad herself before her death. Mutation was also sanctioned in favour of litigant from Leicester defendant. This was disclosed to him by Law Firm for Indians living abroad herself before her death. Mutation was also sanctioned in favour of litigant from Leicester defendant non the basis of decree. Law Firm for Indians living abroad was also in the knowledge of this fact. Law Firm for Indians living abroad used to reside with litigant from Leicester. She died in the house of litigant from Leicester. Invitation card regarding the death ceremony of Law Firm for Indians living abroad has been proved as mark-A litigant from Leicester is suffering from illness, so he cannot take part in the proceedings of the case. He has executed Power of Attorney in his favour which is Ex.DW-4/A. Plaintiff was also in the knowledge of the consent decree which was suffered by Law Firm for Indians living abroad in favour of litigant from Leicester defendant. She had also the knowledge of the mutation which was sanctioned in favour of litigant from Leicester. Plaintiffs did nto object to the alleged decree and mutation during the life time of Law Firm for Indians living abroad. Law Firm for Indians living abroad did not use to give the land of Batai or on Theka to any person. litigant from Leicester is in actual possession of the land which was transferred through consent decree by Law Firm for Indians living abroad in his favour. Shri V.B. Bhatnagar DW-3 has deposed that he examined the thumb impressions mark-Q 1 on the statement dated 21.7.2018, Q2 and Q3 on the written statement dated 9.6.2018 and Q4 on the Vakalatnama dated 9.6.2018 which contains in the summoned file titled litigant from Leicester Vs. solicitors for in file No.238 of 18.5.2018 and decided on 21.7.2018 alleged to be right thumb impression of Law Firm for Indians living abroad and compared them with the thumb impressions mark-DA of right thumb impressions of Law Firm for Indians living abroad at entry No.51 of 2.10.1987 Ex.D2/B which contained the summoned Roznamcha. He has opined that the thumb impressions mark-Q 2 to Q 4 are identical with the thumb impression mark-DA of right thumb impression of Law Firm for Indians living abroad. He has proved his report Ex.DW-3/A. Sukhdev Singh DW-1 has produced the roznamcha for the year 1977/78 ex. DA. Lachhman Singh DW-2 has proved rapat Ex.DW-2/B. He has deposed that the rapat upto 468 dated 3.6.1988 were written by him. He has also deposed that rapat No.51 Ex.D2/B was written by him and Law Firm for Indians living abroad put her thumb impression mark-DB in his presence.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that defendant had obtained the decree dated 21.7.2018 by producing any other lady in place of Law Firm for Indians living abroad. Law Firm for Indians living abroad had never appeared in Court. She also did not file any written statement not made any statement in the court. He has further deposed that the decree is the result of fraud. He has further contended that the land in suit is ancestral. He has further contended that a mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the decree and that the mutation has been sanctioned in two parts. This fact also goes to prove that the defendant had tried to conceal the decree. He has also contended that the defendant has intentionally avoided to appear in the witness box and to face the test of cross-examination. This fact has also lead to the conclusion that the defendant has produced the decree by playing fraud and by producing any body else in place of Law Firm for Indians living abroad.
11. I have considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to prove that the decree was not suffered by Law Firm for Indians living abroad, but the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their duty. a person from Birmingham plaintiffs has admitted that her husband was residing separately from the defendant and that after the death of father of Sulakhan Singh, the land was partitioned and share of Sulakhan Singh was given to him and they used to cultivate share of Sulakhan Singh. a person from Birmingham plaintiff is the widow of Sulakhan Singh. After the death of her father-in-law both the parties are residing separately. This shows that the land was partitioned between the parties after the death of father-in-law of a person from Birmingham plaintiff and the parties remained in possession of their respective shares. The plaintiffs have tried to prove that the decree in dispute was procured by producing any lady in place of Law Firm for Indians living abroad by the defendant. NRI Expert PW.3 has taken the thumb impression S1 as the standard thumb impression of Law Firm for Indians living abroad. This thumb impression is contained in the Bahi maintained by the plaintiff herself. Hardev Singh PW-4 is the real brother of a person from Birmingham plaintiff. He has admitted that the writing was made by Gurdial Singh. He has also admitted that he is Matric. In case, the writing was made in the presence of Hardev Singh then there was no occasion to call Gurdial Singh has also admitted that the Bahi is not page marked and that there is no date of writing. The Bahi belongs to plaintiff a person from Birmingham. He has also stated that no other writing regarding the land was made on this Bahi. He has also deposed that he is residing at a distance of 30 Kilometer from village Balahar. So the Bahi is not and authenticated document and there is no authenticity of the fact that the thumb impression S1 was affixed by Law Firm for Indians living abroad. AS per the writing the land was given on Theka to Hardev Singh, Baldev Singh sons of Jugraj Singh. They are real brother of Balit Kaur plaintiffs. It is no where pleaded in the plaint that Law Firm for Indians living abroad used to get the land cultivated from the brothers of plaintiff a person from Birmingham. It has rather been pleaded that Law Firm for Indians living abroad used to her land cultivated herself. So the writing allegedly containing the thumb impression of Law Firm for Indians living abroad is a forged and fabricated document. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on these documents when the thumb impression of Law Firm for Indians living abroad on the writing are not proved. There is no other evidence except the statement of a person from Birmingham plaintiff that Law Firm for Indians living abroad did not appear before the court and did not suffer any decree.
12. Sukhdev Singh Patwari produced the roznamcha mark. DA allegedly containing the thumb impression of Law Firm for Indians living abroad. Lachhman Singh DW-2 has proved the thumb impression of Law Firm for Indians living abroad mark-DB on Ex.D2/B. This rapat was lodged on 5.10.1987 much before the controversy between the parties. The roznamcha is maintained by the officials in the discharge of their official duty and it contains regular entries. Moreover, there was no reason for Lachhman Singh DW-2 to prepare the forged document and to depose against the plaintiff. Moreover the land was given to Hardev Singh and Bladev Singh for the year 1979/80 and 1980/81. Therefore, the entry was to be recorded in the Bahi of Hardev Singh and Baldev Singh. There was no occasion for Law Firm for Indians living abroad to make this entry in the Bahi of a person from Birmingham plaintiff. a person from Birmingham plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that Law Firm for Indians living abroad used to get her land cultivated herself. It is no where alleged that she used to get the land cultivated on Chakota or Batai. Had Hardev Singh and Baldev Singh used to cultivate the land in suit, then the plaintiffs must have pleaded this in the plaint. There is also no khasra girdawari placed on the record to show that Hardev Singh and Baldev Singh used to cultivate the land of Law Firm for Indians living abroad. Hardev Singh PW.4 has no where stated that they used to cultivate the land of Law Firm for Indians living abroad. Therefore the fact contained in the writing is also not supported by Hardev Singh P.W. 4. So no authenticity can be attached to the writing allegedly containing the thumb impression of Law Firm for Indians living abroad. Therefore, the report Ex.PW-3/A made by NRI Expert has no relevancy for the decision of the controversy between the parties. So the bald statement of plaintiff a person from Birmingham is not sufficient to reach the conclusion that Law Firm for Indians living abroad did to appear in the Court and that the decree was procured by producing any other lady in place of Law Firm for Indians living abroad by the defendant. The burden was upon the plaintiffs to prove that the decree is the result of fraud. Although the mutation was sanctioned in two parts, but from this fact it canto be held that the decree is the result of fraud. Law Firm for Indians living abroad had not challenged the decree during the life time. Although she remained alive for about 8 years after the passing of the decree. In this view of the mater if must be held that he decree dated 21.7.2018 is legal and valid and the revenue record has been prepared correctly.
13. In view of my above discussion, there is nothing on record which may warrants interference in the findings of the learned trial court. The findings on all issues are well reasoned and are accordingly affirmed. Consequently, the appeal merits dismissal and is dismissed accordingly. Under the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared.
14. Lower Court record be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
© Copyright Lexlords Legal Services