Om Parkash And Ors vs Manohar And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6240 P&H

                                                                              209



        In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                          Regular Second Appeal No. 2760 of 2013 (O&M)

                                                 Date of Decision: 06.07.2022


Om Parkash and Others
                                                                 ... Appellant(s)

                                        Versus

Manohar and Others
                                                               ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:     Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate
             with Mr. Dalip Tuteja, Advocate
             for the appellant(s).

             Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate
             for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The defendants have filed the present appeal assailing the

concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below.

2. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit for grant of

decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. It

is the case of the plaintiffs that they are settled in village Kakraula since its

foundation and the land is situated in lal dora of the village. The plaintiffs

claim to be owner in possession of the property being non-proprietors. They

claim that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, in collusion with the

Gram Panchayat, obtained the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1990 which

should be declared null and void. The Gram Panchayat did not contest the

suit whereas the defendants (appellants herein) contested the suit claiming

that a valid decree was passed in the year 1990 and the suit is barred by time.

1 of 3

They also claim to be in possession of the suit property since a long time.

The trial Court decreed the suit after finding that the judgment and decree

dated 06.10.1990 was procured by the predecessor-in-interest of the

defendants in collusion with the then Sarpanch of the village. It was found

that the Sarpanch conceded to the claim of the predecessor-in-interest of the

defendants resulting in the decree. The aforesaid finding has been affirmed

by the First Appellate Court. The trial Court also declared the plaintiffs to be

owners in possession of the suit property but this finding has been reversed

by the First Appellate Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with

their able assistance, perused the the paper-book.

4. The learned counsel representing the appellants, with all

vehemence at his command, submits that the plaintiffs have no right, title or

interest in the property, therefore, they have no locus standi to challenge the

judgment and decree dated 06.10.1990. He further submits that the

appellants are in possession of the property for the last 70 years.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the plaintiffs

contends that the judgment and decree is, on the face of it, a result of

collusion. He submits that the Sarpanch had no authority to admit the claim

of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants without enabling resolution

of the multi member body, with prior permission of the government, in this

regard. He submits that the plaintiffs, being residents of the village, have

locus to file the suit particularly when a fraud has been played by the

defendants.

6. The facts of the case clearly show that late Chunni Lal obtained

the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1990 from the Civil Court in collusion 2 of 3

with the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Such decree, being nullity,

has no force of law. The plaintiffs were not a party to the previous decree

and the same is a decree in personam. Hence, it is not binding on the rights

of the plaintiffs or any other respondent. The First Appellate Court has not

granted any declaration in favour of the plaintiffs qua their ownership. In

these circumstances, in substance, the Court has only declared the decree,

which was obtained from the Court in collusion with the Sarpanch of the

Gram Panchayat, as nullity.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to

interfere. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

8. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 06, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3