Krishna Ram vs Ajay Kumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4729 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishna Ram vs Ajay Kumar on 4 November, 2025

           RSA-427-1999 (O&M)                                                                  -1-



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                                                  -.-
                                                      RSA
                                                      RSA-427-1999 (O&M)
                                                      Reserved on:
                                                               on:- 27.10.2025
                                                      Date of Decision ::04.11.2025

           Krishna Ram (since deceased) through LRs                        ....Appellants


                                                      VERSUS

           Ajay Kumar                                                      ....Respondent

           CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

           Present:            Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and
                               Mr. Purusharth Dhull, Advocate for the appellants.

                               Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by
                               Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
                                                        -.-

           MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-

appellant

plaintiff Krishna Ram against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1999 passed by

the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, whereby the judgment and decree

dated 14.05.1997 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri in a suit for

declaration, were reversed.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Krishna Ram filed a

suit for declaration laration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land

measuring 27 kanals 17 marlas and 1/6th share of land measuring 10 kanals 17

marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri,

District Yamuna Nagar, with all rights appurtenant thereto in Shamlat Deh etc.,

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

and further sought a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated

29.04.1988 passed in favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled

"Ajay Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram"

Ram by the Court of Shri M.L. Bansal, the then Sub

Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri, is illegal, null and void, ineffective and not binding upon

the rights of the plaintiff. It was also prayed that mutation No. 844 attested by A.C.

II Grade, Jagadhri, on 22.07.1988 in pursuance of the said decree and further

entries regarding ownership and possession based on the said decree are also

illegal, null and void, and that a decree for permanent injunction be passed

restraining the defendant from interfering in the actual physical possessi possession on of the

plaintiff over the land in dispute.

3. The suit was filed against Ajay Kumar, minor son of Shri Babu Ram,

through his father and natural guardian, Shri Babu Ram. Briefly stated, the plaintiff

alleged that he is the owner in possession of the sui suitt land mentioned above and that

the defendant, being a minor, and his father have no concern with the plaintiff or

the land in dispute. It was further averred that in the year 1988, the father of the

defendant, Babu Ram, requested the plaintiff to stand su surety rety for him in order to

secure a loan from the bank for the construction of a pucca house. The plaintiff,

being an illiterate and old man, agreed to stand surety, and for that purpose, his

thumb impressions were obtained on certain papers, which were said to be required

for the loan process. However, by playing fraud and misrepresentation, Babu Ram

and the defendant got a fraudulent decree from the Court regarding the suit land.

The plaintiff never executed any transfer deed or relinquished his ownership rrights ights

in any manner. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and the

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

consequential mutation No. 844 were the result of fraud and misrepresentation,

obtained with mala fide intention and ulterior motives.

4. The defendant, on the other hand, de denied nied the allegations and asserted

that the plaintiff is related to him, being the brother of his grandfather. It was

pleaded that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, and that the suit land was

given to the defendant in a family settlement, in which th thee plaintiff voluntarily

filed a suit admitting the claim of the present defendant. Based on such admission

and consent, the decree was passed by the Court Court,, which was perfectly legal, valid,

and binding upon all parties, including the present plaintiff. The defendant further

stated that mutation No. 844 was rightly sanctioned in his name in consequence of

the decree. It was also pleaded that under the said family arrangement, the plaintiff

retained with him cash and jewellery in lieu of the land given to the defendant. The

defendant further contended that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was not compulsorily

registrable, as it was passed on the basis of admission of the plaintiff in the

previous suit. It was also pleaded that since the decree was passed with the

voluntary consent sent of the plaintiff, no permission of the Court was required under

the law on behalf of the minor defendant. The defendant further stated that the

plaintiff has already been out of possession of the suit land since the passing of the

decree in 1988, and therefore, the question of any interference in his possession

does not arise. The defendant also raised additional objections that the present suit

is barred by law of limitation, res judicata, that the plaintiff has no locus standi to

file the present suit, suit, and that the same is not maintainable in the present form.

5. Replication was filed, wherein the plaintiff reiterated his earlier stand,

denying the averments made in the written statement.

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

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide

order dated 14.05.1992:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as

detailed in the headnote of the plaint with all the rights appurtenant

thereto in shamlat deh etc.? OPP

2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 29.04.

29.04.1988 1988 passed in

favour of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled as Ajay

Kumar vs. Krishna Ram with respect to the suit land is illegal, null,

void, ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

3. Whether mutation No. 844 att attested ested in favour of the defendant

by A.C. II Grade, Jagadhri on 22.07.1988 pursuant to the impugned

decree and further entries with respect to the ownership and

possession on the basis of the said decree in the name of the defendant

are also illegal, null and and void, ineffective and not binding upon the

rights of the plaintiff? OPP

4. Whether the defendant is illegally interfering in the actual

physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by way of

alienation? OPP

5. Whether the suit is barred by th thee principle of res judicata? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?

OPD

8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

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

9. Whether the answering defendant is entitled to special costs

under Section 35-A 35 A CPC, the suit of the plaintiff being false and

frivolous? OPD

10. Relief.

Findings of the trial Court

7. The trial Court,, after examining the oral and documentary evidence,

came to the conclusion that the plaintiff Krishna Ram was the owner in possession

of the suit land along with all rights appurtenant thereto. The Court held that the

judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1988 titled

Ajay Kumar vs. Krishna Ram was obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation.

It was found that the plaintiff, being an old and illiterate man, was induced by

Babu Ram, father of the minor defendant, to affix his thumb impressions on certain

documents under the pretext of standing surety for a bank loan. However, those

papers were later misused to procure a consent decree in favour of the minor. The

Court observed that the alleged family settlement forming the basis of that decree

was a concocted story and that the suit property was the self self-acquired acquired property of

the he plaintiff. Since the defendant Ajay Kumar had no pre pre-existing existing right in the

property, there could be no valid family settlement, as such arrangements

presuppose existing rights in favour of all parties. The earlier decree, therefore,

was held to be collusive, collusive, fictitious, and a product of fraud, making it null and void

in the eyes of law. Consequently, the mutation sanctioned on the basis of that

decree was also declared illegal, ineffective, and not binding on the rights of the

plaintiff. It was further held held that the plaintiff continued to remain in cultivating

possession of the suit land, and the defendant, through his father, was illegally

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

attempting to interfere in that possession by relying on the fraudulent decree. The

Court accepted the plaintiff's evidence evidence that the cause of action arose only when the

defendant started asserting ownership and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff,

and therefore, the suit was filed within limitation. The objections raised by the

defendant regarding res judicata, locus standi, and maintainability were rejected on

the ground that the earlier decree being void and fraudulent could not bar a fresh

suit, and the plaintiff, being in possession, was fully competent to seek declaration

and injunction.

8. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit on 14.05.1997, declaring

that the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 and mutation No. 844 attested on

its basis were illegal, null, and void, and not binding upon the rights of the

plaintiff. The defendant was was permanently restrained from interfering in the

peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or alienating it in any manner.

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

9. The lower appellate Court,, after reappreciating the evidence and the

reasoningg of the trial Court,, reversed the findings primarily on the ground that the

plaintiff Krishna Ram had voluntarily suffered the decree dated 29.04.1988 and

failed to establish any element of fraud or misrepresentation. It was observed that

the plaintiff himself mself had admitted in his testimony that he had appeared in Court

and suffered the decree in favour of Ajay Kumar. His subsequent explanation that

he was deceived into putting his thumb impressions under the pretext of standing

surety for a loan was found inconsistent and unreliable. The appellate Court noted

contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence and found that his conduct and admissions

in the earlier suit clearly showed conscious participation, not deception.

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

10. The Court held that there was no cre credible dible evidence to prove that Babu

Ram, father of the minor defendant, had played any fraud. The statement of the

plaintiff's own witnesses was found contradictory, and the testimony of the

advocate who drafted the earlier compromise showed that Krishna Ram had

admitted the contents of the written statement and compromise after understanding

them. The Court observed that once the plaintiff had admitted the facts forming the

basis of the earlier decree, he was estopped from later denying them. It was further

held that the decree in question did not require registration as it merely affirmed

the rights admitted by the parties and did not create new rights in immovable

property for the first time.

11. The appellate Court also observed that the possession of the suit land

was rightly reflected in the revenue record in the name of the defendant Ajay

Kumar and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his continued possession. The plea

of limitation raised by the appellant was also found to have merit, as the suit was

filed nearly four years after the 1988 decree. Consequently, it was held that the

findings of the trial Court on issues of fraud, ownership, and possession were

unsustainable. The lower appellate Court therefore declared the decree dated

29.04.1988 to be valid and binding, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial

Court,, and dismissed the suit of Krishna Ram.

12. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant appellant-Krishna Krishna Ram has preferred the

present appeal, which upon notice is contested by the respondent.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant

13. Learned counsel for the appellant-

appellant-plaintiff plaintiff Krishna Ram has argued

that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court reversing

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

the well-considered considered judgment of the trial Court is contrary ntrary to law and evidence on

record. It is submitted that the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit by holding

that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was obtained by way of fraud and

misrepresentation and that the same was a nullity in the eyes of law. The llearned earned

lower appellate Court erred in ignoring settled legal principles and the material

evidence brought on record by the plaintiff.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh vs. R Ram am Singh Major and Others,

AIR 1996 SC 196, 196, to contend that where a right in immovable property is created

for the first time, the decree requires registration. In the present case, admittedly,

the defendant had no pre-existing pre existing right in the suit property; therefore, the alleged

family settlement forming the basis of the 1988 decree was without foundation and

could not transfer ownership in favour of the defendant. It is further argued that the

case is fully covered by the ratio laid down in S.P. Chengalvaraya ya Naidu vs.

Jagannath and Others (AIR 1994 SC 853) and Smt. Badami (deceased) by her

L.R. vs. Bhali (2012) 11 SCC 574, 574, wherein it has been held that a judgment or

decree obtained by playing fraud upon the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes

of law, and such a decree can be challenged even in collateral proceedings. It is

further submitted that fraud vitiates all judicial acts, and no estoppel can operate

against a person who has been a victim of fraud.

15. It is contended that the learned lower appellate Court's 's finding that

the appellant had voluntarily suffered the decree is wholly unsustainable, as there

is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiff knowingly admitted the pleadings

in the earlier suit.

sui The trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff was an old and

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

illiterate person who was misled into putting his thumb impressions on papers

under the pretext of standing surety for a bank loan, which were later misused to

procure the decree. The observation observation of the lower appellate Court that the fraud was

not pleaded or proved is factually incorrect, as the plaintiff specifically pleaded the

fraudulent conduct of Babu Ram, the father of the defendant, and deposed to that

effect on oath. Once fraud was pleaded pleaded and supported by sworn testimony, the

burden shifted upon the defendant to disprove the allegation, which the defendant

failed to do.

16. It is further submitted that the finding of the lower appellate Court

invoking the bar of Order 23 Rule 3A CPC is beyond the pleadings, as no such

plea was ever taken by the defendant in his written statement. The lower appellate

Court therefore committed a jurisdictional error in deciding the appeal on a ground

not raised by the parties. It is also urged that the observation of the lower appellate

Court that the decree did not require registration is contrary to the settled position

of law laid down in Bhoop Singh's case (supra) (supra).. The learned counsel further

relied on Ex.P-11 11 to P-40 P 40 (electricity bills and receipts) receipts),, which were duly produced

before the trial Court,, to show that the tubewell in the suit property stood in the

name of Krishna Ram and that he was paying the electricity charges, thereby

proving his continued possession over the suit property.

17. The appellant's appellant's counsel further pointed out that the case of the

defendant that Krishna Ram was duly compensated in lieu of the land allegedly

given to the defendant stands falsified by the testimony of DW4, Babu Ram

himself, who admitted in cross-examination cross examination tha thatt nothing was given to Krishna

Ram in exchange for the alleged family settlement and that he never accompanied

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

Krishna Ram to the Court at the time the decree was passed. These admissions

clearly prove that the decree in favour of the minor defendant was oobtained btained by

fraud and misrepresentation. The lower appellate Court,, therefore, erred in holding

otherwise, and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent

18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent respondent-defendant defendant has

supported the judgment of the lower appellate Court,, contending that it is well-

well

reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence. It is argued that in the

previous suit filed on 27.01.1988, 27.01.1988, the plaintiff Krishna Ram himself filed a written

statement (Ex.D1) admitting the claim of the defendant and also executed a

compromise (Ex.D2) before the Court,, where the statements of both parties were

duly recorded (Ex.D3). Therefore, the decree dated 29.04.1988 was passed on the

voluntary admission and compromise of Krishna Ram and was perfectly legal and

binding.

19. The respondent's counsel further submitted that under Order 23 Rule

3 CPC, once a compromise decree is passed, no separate suit llies ies to challenge it;

the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the same Court that

recorded the compromise. It is also argued that there is no specific pleading or

evidence of fraud on record, as the plaintiff has failed to produce an any y independent

or convincing material to substantiate his claim. The electricity bills relied upon by

the appellant were objected to at the time of tendering on the ground of mode of

proof and admissibility; mere exhibition of documents does not amount to pproof roof in

law. The respondent further pointed out that the decree was duly acted upon, the

land was mutated in the name of the defendant, and the revenue records reflected

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

his ownership and possession. It was also argued that the plaintiff Krishna Ram has

since nce died and has been substituted by his legal representative Lachhman Singh,

who is a distant relative, and hence the present proceedings are being prosecuted

by a person having no direct interest in the property. Lastly, it was argued that the

plaintiff did not provide any detailed particulars of fraud in his plaint and that the

trial Court failed to record a specific finding supported by evidence on that issue.

Findings of this Court

20. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

records of the courts below, I am of the considered view that the present Regular

Second Appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The judgment

and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court are well reasoned and based

upon correct ect appreciation of facts and law. The findings recorded by the trial court

were perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and have rightly been

reversed by the learned first appellate court.

21. The principal contention raised by learned counsel fo forr the appellant

that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was obtained by playing fraud upon the court and

is therefore a nullity cannot be accepted. The plea of fraud must be specifically

pleaded and proved by cogent evidence, as required under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC. A

bare allegation of fraud, unsupported by convincing particulars or independent

corroboration, cannot vitiate a decree passed by a competent court. In the present

case, the plaintiff himself admitted during his statement before the trial court that

he hadd appeared in court and suffered the decree in favour of the defendant. The

plea now sought to be raised that he was deceived into putting his thumb

impressions under the pretext of standing surety for a loan is an afterthought,

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

inconsistent with his own earlier earlier conduct. The courts have repeatedly held that a

person who has consciously participated in proceedings and admitted a claim

cannot later turn around to challenge the decree on vague allegations of deceit.

22. The reliance placed by the appellant up upon on the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme 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 said

decisions, the fraud alleged was clearly proved by withholding of vital docum documents ents

and deliberate suppression of material facts before the court. In contrast, the

appellant in the present case has neither identified any such material concealment

nor produced any independent evidence to show that the defendant or his father

Babu Ram misled the court at the time the earlier decree was passed. The plea of

fraud, therefore, remains a mere assertion without substantiation. The lower

appellate court has rightly held that no evidence was forthcoming to suggest that

Krishna Ram was misled, and and his own statement in the earlier proceedings,

supported by the written statement (Ex.D1), compromise (Ex.D2) and recorded

statements (Ex.D3), clearly establish that the decree was suffered voluntarily.

Fraud no doubt vitiates every solemn act, but court courtss must distinguish between

genuine deceit and a belated attempt to undo one's own conscious admission. The

present case falls in the latter category. Permitting such challenges would destroy

the finality of judicial proceedings and encourage litigants to rrenege enege on their own

solemn undertakings. The justice system cannot countenance such abuse

23. The next submission of the appellant that the decree in question

required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act Act, 1908 also has no

force. The learned lower appellate court has correctly observed that the decree did

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

not create any new right for the first time but only embodied the admission of the

plaintiff in the earlier suit acknowledging the transfer of property in favo favour ur of the

defendant. Where the decree merely affirms pre pre-existing existing rights as admitted by the

parties, it is not compulsorily registrable. Reliance is placed on Som Dev and Ors.

O

Vs Rati Ram am and Anr. 2006(4) RCR (civil) 303 303,, wherein the Hon'ble supreme

court, in para 10 held that :

"....the position that emerges is that a decree or order of a court is "....the

exempted from registration even if clauses (b) and (c) of Section 17(1)

off the Registration Act are attracted, and even a compromise decree

comes under the exception, unless, of course, it takes in any

immovable property that is not the subject matter of the suit. "

24. Equally untenable is the appellant's contention that the lower

appellate court erred in invoking Order 23 Rule 3A CPC. It is well settled that once

a decree is passed on the basis of a lawful compromise between the parties, no

separate suit lies to challenge the same, and the only remedy available is to move

the same court which recorded the compromise. Even if the plea was not

specifically taken in the written statement, the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC

being statutory, it operates irrespective of the pleadings. The learned lower

appellate court has therefore not committed any error in holding that the

subsequent suit to challenge a compromise decree was not maintainable. It is held

by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Smt. Sadhna

Rai vs Rajinder Singh & Ors. 2006 (3) RCR (civil) 479 479, para 12 that :

"'12. The position that emerges from the amended provisions of

Order 23, can be summed up thus :

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

(i) No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard

to the specific bar contained in section 96(3) CPC.

(ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the court recording

the compromise (or refusing to record a compromise) in view of the

deletion of clause (m) Rule 1 Order 43.

(iii) No independent suit can be filed for settin setting g aside a compromise

decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of

the bar contained in Rule 3A.

(iv) A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding

unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree decree,, by

an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 Order 23.''

25. The appellant's argument that the lower appellate court ignored

evidence of possession, such as electricity bills (Ex.P11 to Ex.P40), is equally

without merit. Mere Mere exhibition of documents is not sufficient proof of possession

unless they are duly proved by by the person maintaining such records. The plaintiff

did not examine any official witness to authenticate these documents, and

moreover, the revenue entries consistently show the possession of the defendant.

The oral evidence led by the plaintiff was incon inconsistent sistent and unreliable. His own

witnesses contradicted his claim of possession and were unable to produce any

credible proof of cultivation by the plaintiff.

26. Ass regards the plea that no compensation was given to the plaintiff as

alleged, in lieu of the the alleged family settlement, this argument is also of no avail.

The existence or absence of monetary compensation is irrelevant once the plaintiff

had voluntarily admitted the transfer in the earlier proceedings. The admission and

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

compromise duly recorded by the competent court are binding unless vitiated by

proven fraud, which has not been established here.

27. The learned lower appellate court has examined the entire material

afresh, recorded detailed findings that the plaintiff failed to prove the plea of fraud

or misrepresentation, and rightly held that the decree dated 29.04.1988 was lawful

and binding upon the parties. No other point was raised before this Court Court.

28. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of

merit. The judgment judgment and decree dated 27.01.1999 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Jagadhri, are affirmed.

29. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

           November 04, 2025                                              (MANDEEP PANNU)
           tripti                                                          JUDGE

                               Whether speaking/non-speaking
                                                    speaking : Speaking
                               Whether reportable            : Yes/No