Gurdev Singh And Others vs Mala Rai Kaur And Others on 19 February, 2014

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurdev Singh And Others vs Mala Rai Kaur And Others on 19 February, 2014

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

           CR No.6044 of 2011 (O&M)
                                                                                           :1:

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                     CHANDIGARH


                                                     Civil Revision No.6044 of 2011 (O&M)
                                                             Date of Decision : 19.02.2014

           Gurdev Singh and others
                                                                             ..... Petitioner(s)

                                                 Versus


           Mala Rai Kaur and others

                                                                           ..... Respondent(s)


           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

           Present:            Mr.Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate,
                               for the petitioner(s).

                               Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate,
                               for respondents No.1 and 2.

                               Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate,
                               for respondent No.3.

                               Ms.Jasleen Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

                                           *****

           1.         To be referred to the Reporters or not?
           2.         Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                                           *****

           RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)

There can be no doubt that the order obtained from the Court at Kharar was procured by practicing deceit and fraud by the respondent, who was married to Sher Singh under Kareva custom. From that marriage, a child was born. In the Court at Kharar, permission was sought on behalf of the minor to sell the property without disclosing that the respondent wife Kumar Paritosh 2014.02.25 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6044 of 2011 (O&M) :2: had filed a similar and identical case at Sangrur before the Guardian Judge. The petition was filed in the Court at Sangrur on 7.4.2010 (P-6) and the petition in the Court at Kharar was filed on 28.7.2010 (P-10). The Court at Kharar under mistake of fact granted the permission. It was specifically pleaded in para. 10 at page 77 of the paperbook by Mala Rai Kaur "that no such petition has earlier been filed by the petitioner before this Court or any other court of law.".

The Court is informed that Mala Rai Kaur has abandoned the proceedings in the Court at Sangrur and is not traceable. This Court had vide order dated 9.9.2013 required the personal presence of the parties and they were directed to remain present in Court on 19.9.2013. Despite orders, Mala Rai Kaur did not put in appearance which led to further orders being passed by this Court including of police help in the matter. On 16.12.2013, this Court was apprised by the learned State Counsel, on instructions from Head Constable Gurpartap Singh who was present in Court, that the whereabouts of respondents No.1 and 2 have been found and they shall be produced in Court on the next date of hearing.

Today, Ms.Jasleen Sidhu, on instructions from HC Gurpartap Singh, states that the house taken on rent by Mala Rai Kaur was found locked by the police. Her whereabouts are not known any longer. She has withdrawn her ward from the school on 17.12.2013 and the police in the circumstances can only make further efforts to trace her out. The police is directed to continue with the search and to apprise this Court on affidavit filed in this case of the results even after this case stands disposed of. To do so in two months.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Kumar Paritosh 2014.02.25 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6044 of 2011 (O&M) :3: In the totality of circumstances, this Court is left with no doubt that deceit was practiced on the Court at Kharar to obtain permission to sell the property making the child/ward a tool in the hands of Mala Rai Kaur and perhaps at the behest of the purchaser of the property from her in 2010.

This is mainly for the reason that in para. 10, a vital fact was concealed from the Court of the pendency of an identical matter at Court in Sangrur filed by Mala Rai Kaur. The decree/order obtained by deceit and fraud is a nullity and has no value in the eyes of law.

It is well settled that fraud vitiates everything and by applying that principle, I declare that the impugned order dated 20.4.2011 (P-11) deserves to be nullified. The permission granted to dispose of the land will be taken as though it was never given.

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE February 19, 2014 Paritosh Kumar Kumar Paritosh 2014.02.25 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court