SANTOSHversusJAGAT RAM & ANR.

                     [2010] 2 S.C.R. 429


                           SANTOSH                                    A
                               v.
                       JAGAT RAM & ANR.
                (Civil Appeal No. 1881 of 2008)

                      FEBRUARY 8, 2010
                                                                      B
   (V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,
                       JJ.]

      Suit - By widow, for declaration of her ownership in
 possession, of suit land, left behind by her deceased husband        C
 - Plaintiff alleging that her earlier consent decree in favour
 of the defendants was the result of a fraud - Defendants
 denying the allegation and taking the plea that the suit was
 time-barred :-- Suit decreed - Decree set aside by first
 appellate court - Second appeal dismissed in limine - On             D
 appeal, Held: Facts of the case prove that the consent decree
 was result of fraud, hence a nullity - The suit is also not barred
 by time - Limitation.

      Appellant filed the present suit in the year 1990, for          E
  declaration to the effect that she was the owner in
· possession of the land, left behind by her deceased
  husband; and that the decree dated 26.3.1985 shown to
  have been suffered by her in favour of the respondents-
  defendants was illegal, bad and was a result of fraud.
  Respondents-defendants contested the suit stating that              F
  there was no question of fraud; and that the said decree
  was passed as per the family settlement. They also
  pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial
  Court while decreeing the suit, returned a finding that the
  decree dated 26.3.1985 was a result of a fraud. The first           G
  appellate court allowed the appeal holding that there was
  no fraud and the consent decree dated 26.3.1985 was a
  good and a valid decree. The first appellate court also
  held that the suit was barred by time. Second Appeal was
                               429                                    H
    430      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [201.0] 2 S.C.R.


A dismissed in limine by the High Court.

        The questions for consideration in this appeal were
    whether a fraud was played against the appellant for
    obtaining the decree dated 26.3.1985; and whether the
    second suit filed by the appellant was within limitation.
8
          Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1.1. The Trial Court, after correctly framing the
    issues, took the stock of all the four witnesses, namely,
c   Record Keeper (DW-1 ), Bailiff (DW-2), Advocate (DW-3)
    and father of the respondents-defendants (DW-4). The
    Court answered the issues in favour of the appellant, as
    regards (i) Ownership and joint possession of the suit
    land of the plaintiff. (ii) The decree dated 26.3.1985 being
0   nullity. (iii) Recording the mutation being illegal and not
    binding on the rights of the plaintiff. [Para 9] [438-C-E]

       1.2. Taking stock of the evidence, the trial court took
  note of the improved version on the part of DW-4 that the
  father of the appellant had demanded Rs.20,000/- and had
E then agreed to give share of the deceased to the
  respondents-defendants and that the said amount was
  paid through cousin of DW-4. The trial court rightly noted
  that this was not only an improvement, but the person,
  through whom the amount was given, was never
F examined. The trial court also referred to the admission
  by DW-4 that no money was ever given to the appellant
  for household expenses and that she had no source to
  maintain herself. From this, the trial court correctly
  deduced that the person .who is not having any source
G to maintain himself/herself, could not part with his/her
  landed property as well in the manner that the appellant
  did. [Para 9] [438-F-H; 439-A]

     1.3. The trial court noted the admissions by Advocate
H (DW-3) to the effect that he and the appellant's advoc~te,
          SANTOSH v. JAGAT RAM & ANR.                     431


in the earlier suit and for the respondents-defendants in        A
the present suit before the trial court, used to sit on the
same seat and were the partners in the same profession
having a common clerk. The trial court also noted the
arguments on the side of the respondents to the effect
that DW-4 was looking after the appellant and that the           B
appellant had filed a Written Statement in the first case,
the contents of which were well known to I.er and that
she admitted the same as correct, as asserted by DW-3,
in his evidence. [Para 9] [439-A-C]

     1.4. The trial court also noted the facts about the         C
Caveat having been filed by the respondents, the reply
to which was filed by the appellant-plaintiff, wherein she
had averred that she had voluntarily suffered the
impugned judgment and decree and that she did not
challenge the same. The trial court rightly found the story      D
of payment of Rs.20,000/- to be a myth, since it was
nowhere stated in the pleadings also. Further, the trial
court also noted that the appellant, who was an issueless
widow and an illiterate lady, was not at all being
supported by DW-4 and DW-4 being her elder brother-in-           E
law, was in a position to dominate and take advantage
of her ignorance and illiteracy. The trial court also inferred
correctly from the fact that a Caveat was filed in the year
1985 itself and the appellant was again paraded to make
a statement that she did not intend to challenge the             F
decree. [Para 9] [439-D-F]

    1.5. There are number of material facts in the
evidence, which have been ignored by the appellate
court. The basic fact which has been ignored by the              G
appellate court is that in the earlier Civil Suit No. 253 of
1985, the plaint was filed on that day, Written Statement
was also filed on the same day, the evidence of the
plaintiffs and the defendant was also recorded on the
same day and the judgment was also made ready
                                                                 H
    432    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A alongwith a decree on the same day. This, by itself, was
  sufficient to raise serious doubts in the mind of the
  courts~ lnst.ead, the appellate court went on to believe the
  evidence of DW-1, the Record Keeper, who produced the
  files of the summons. [Para10] [440-A-C]
B
       1.6. An impossible inference was drawn by the
  appellate court that the appellant was telling a blatant lie
  when she asserted that she did not voluntarily suffer a
  decree. The appellate court has also mentioned about
  the File No. 5 dated 30.9.1985, which would be hardly
c about six months after the decree passed on 26.3.1985,
  which pertain to the Caveat filed u/s. 148-A CPC. Appellant
  was again brought to the court in pursuance of the so-
  called summons served on her through Bailiff in the
  proceedings u/s. 148-A CPC and her statement was also
D got recorded. It is not known as to how a Caveat
  application was got registered and a summons was sent
  on the basis of a Caveat application, treating it to be an
  independent proceedings. Such is not the scope of a
  Caveat u/s. 148-A CPC. [Para 10] [440-E-H; 441-A] ·
E
       1.7. This was nothing, but a very poor attempt to get
  the fate of the appellant sealed by getting her statement
  recorded. Instead of drawing the correct inferences, the
  appellate court went on to record the impossible findings.
F The High Court passed a very casual judgment without
  being bothered about these glaring facts. [Paras10 and
  11] [411-C-D-A]

      2.1. As regards the question of limitation, the trial
  court noted that the cause of action arose when
G respondents started interfering with ownership and
  possession of the appellant-plaintiff over the suit land
  about two and half months before filing of the second suit
  and started asserting about having a decree in their
  favour in respect of the suit land. [Para 9] [439-G-H]
H
          SANTOSH v. JAGAT RAM & ANR.                     433


     2.2. A fraud puts an end to everything. Such decree         A
is nothing, but a nullity. It has come in the evidence that
when the respondents started disturbing the possession
of the appellant and also started bragging about a decree
having been obtained by them, the appellant chose to file
a suit. In that view, her suit filed in 1990 would be            B
absolutely within time. The casual observation made by
the High Court that her suit would be barred by limitation,
is also wholly incorrect. [Para 12] (442-D]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.              C
1881 of 2008.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 21.2.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarhin RS.A.No. 3837
of 2001.
                                                                 D
     V.C. Mahajan, C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellant.

     T.S. Ahuja and Ajit Kumar Pande for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                 E
      V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This is an appeal by a helpless
 widow, who has become a prey of the greed of her own elder
 brother in law and is deprived of her properties in a fraudulent
 manner. As per the pleadings, Smt. Santosh (appellant herein),
 the original plaintiff, lost her husband Chander Pal in the year F
 1985. She is issueless. Chander Pal, at the time of his death,
 owned a land to the extent of 36 kanals 7 marlas out of the total
.land measuring 80 kanals 1 maria comprised in khewat No. 64
 khatoni No. 96 and 97 as per Jamabandi for the year 1975-76
situated at Village Kotia, Tehsil and District Mahendragarh. G
After losing her husband in the prime of youth, she had nobody·
to look forward to. Respondents are the sons of one Daya
 Ram, who was the real brother of Chander Pal. Appellant was
approached by Daya Ram (DW-4), who convinced her to
accompany him to Courts of Mahendragarh, so that the mutation
                                                                 H
    434      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A of the properties inherited by her from her husband could be
  made and the properties could be recorded in her name.
  Believing him, she accompanied him to Mahendragarh, where
  her thumb impressions were obtained on 3-4 papers. She was
  also asked to say 'yes' if she was asked any question by the
B authorities. She believed in good faith that the mutation will be
  done and the properties would be recorded in her name. All
  this happened on 26.3.1985. About two and half months, before
  filing of second suit the respondents (original defendants) and
  her brother in law Daya Ram (DW-4) started interfering with her
c possession and insisted that there was a decree passed in their
  favour in respect of her lands. She, therefore, filed the present
  suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in
  possession of the land in respect of the properties mentioned
  above and the so-called decree dated 26.3.1985 shown to have
D been suffered by her in favour of the respondents-defendants
  is illegal, bad and was a result of fraud and, therefore, not
  binding upon her at all.

        2. The suit was contested by the respondents-defendants.
   They claimed that the decree in question was legal and there
E was no question of fraud and that'in fact, the said decree was
   as per the family settlement. They also pleaded thaMhe suit
   was barred by limitation and as such, the suit was liable to be
 . dismissed; The evidence was led on behalf of the appellant-
   plaintiff in support of her plea, wherein she examined herself,
F while on behalf of the respondents-defendants, four witnesses
   were examined including one Dharam Singh (DW-1), Record
   Keeper, one Ram Singh (DW-2), Bailiff, one S.K. Joshi (DW-
   3), Advocate and Daya Ram (DW-4) himself. The Trial Court
   accepted the evidence of the appellant-plaintiff and disbelieved
G the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents-
   defendants and while decreeing the suit, returned a finding that
   the decree dated 26.3.1985 was a result of a fraud.

          3. An appeal came to be filed by the respondents-

H
           SANTOSH v. JAGAT RAM & ANR.                      435
                [V.S~ SIRPURKAR, J.]

de(endants against the above order, which was allowed. The          A
Appellate Court came to the conclusion that there was no fraud
played and the consent decree dated 26.3.1985 was a good
and a valid decree. The Appellate Court also held that the suit
filed by the appellant-plaintiff was barred by time.
                                                                    B
    4. The appE;!llant-plaintiff filed a Second Appeal before the
High Court, which was dismissed in limine. This is how the
appeal has come before us.

     5. Shri V.C. Mahajan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant, firstly pointed out that the judgment   C
by the High Cou.rt in the. Second Appeal was a classic example
of non-application of mind. He pointed out that the consent
decree dated 26.3.1985 was a classic example of fraud. The
Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his plea, pointed out that
the plaint is dated 26.3.1985; It is filed on 26.3.1985; The        D
Written Statement filed by the appellant is also dated
26.3.1985; The appellant was examined on 26.3.1985 and the
decree was also passed on 26.3.1985. The Learned Senior
Counsel wondered as to how all this could have happened on
one and the same day. He pointed out that there was no              E
question of the appellant being summoned by the Court or she
remaining present in pursuance of those summons. The
Learned Senior Counsel took us through the plaint in that suit,
which was registered as Civil Suit No. 253 of 1985. According
to the Learned Senior Counsel, as if all this was not sufficient,   F
later on, an application was filed, purporting to be an
application under Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC) on 30.9.1985. This application was filed with the
signatures of the same Advocate S.K. Joshi, who had
appeared on behalf of the appellant in the earlier proceedings      G
and had filed a Written Statement of consent. It is then pointed
out by the Learned Senior Counsel that a notice was issued
by the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class to the appellant and was
served through a bailiff and in pursuance of that notice, she
came and gave a statement before the Court on 23.11.1985            H
    436     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R. -


A that she did not intend to file a suit, challenging the consent
  decree. The Learned Senior Counsel then pointed out that
  there was no question of any proceedings being instituted on
  the basis of a so-called caveat under Section 148-A of the CPC
  nor was there any question of the Court issuing any notice on
B the basis of a caveat. He also pointed out further that all this
  was nothing but a towering fraud played upon the appellant. He
  pointed out that it is throughout the case of the appellant that
  she never appeared before any Court nor did she depose
  before the Court and that she is an illiterate lady knowing
c nothing about the intricacies of law and the procedures of the
  Court. The Learned Senior Counsel further. argued that though
  the suit was rightly decreed by the Trial Court holding that the
  earlier decree obtained in the year 1985 was a fraud upon the
  appellant, the Appellate Court has, in a most casual manner,
  allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants and
0
  chose to believe the evidence of the lawyer, which also was a
  classic example of non-application of mind on the part of the
  Appellate Court. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that
  as if all this was not sufficient, the High Court, in a most casual
  manner, has chosen to dismiss such Second Appeal, involving
E the substantial questions of law, in limine without even
  considering the same. From this, the Learned Senior Counsel
  argued that the respondents herein have succeeded in
  perpetrating their fraud against the appellant.

F      6. The argument was opposed by Shr'i T.S. Ahuja,
  Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents on
  the ground that the case of the respondents was well S\.lpported
  by the fact that the lawyer Shri S.K. Joshi had stepped into the
  witness box in the subsequent suit and had reiterated that the
G appellant had consented and instructed him and it was only as
  per the instructions of the appellant that he had prepared her
  Written Statement in the first suit. The Learned Counsel also
  pointed out that Shri Joshi (DW-3) also reiterated about the
  appellant's statement made in the caveat proceedings. The
H Learned Counsel further argued that even Shri R.S. Yadav,
                SANTOSH v. JAGAT RAM & ANR.                      437
                     [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

Advocate, who appeared in the Trial Court for the appellant             A
herein, offered himself as a witness by way of additional
evidence and he had stated that the Criminal Petition No. 7-4
dated 28.9.1994 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C.), which was decided on 12.8.2000 was drafted
as per the instructions given by the appellant Santosh and that         B
the appellant had put her thumb impression on this petition
which was Exhibit AX. From this, the Learned Senior Counsel
claimed that even on 28.9.1994, the land was not in possession
of the appellant Santosh and, therefore, the story of the
appellant that she came to the Court when her possession was            c
being disturbed, is a myth and as such, the second suit was
obviously barred by time. The Learned Counsel further
reiterated that this was correctly appreciated by the Appellate
Court and the High Court and they were correct in dismissing
the suit as barred by time. He also pointed out that during the         0
pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court, the
respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Order 6 Rule
17 CPC for amendment, pointing out that after the first decree
in Civil Suit No. 253 of 1985, the respondents-defendants had
constructed a pucca well and also installed a pumping set and
obtained electric connection from the Electricity Board and the         E
appellant Santosh did not object to the same. The Learned
Counsel fairly admitted that this application was, however,
dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

      7. The basic questions in this appeal would-be as follows:-       F

          (i) Whether a fraud was played against the appellant herein
          for obtaining the decree in Civil Suit No. 253 of 1985?

      (ii) Whether the second suit filed by the appellant was
      within limitation?                                                G

    .8. We have very carefully perused the records
    ··I                                      •
                                                   of the Courts
below since the judgment of the High Court is laconic. Beyond
mentioning the facts on the basis of the pleadings, there is
nothing in the 1udgment. It seems to hav.e been passed on the           H
    438          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 2 S.C.R.


.A incorrect basis of the absence of substantial question of law.
   Again the High Court has given a one-line finding that the suit
   filed by the appellant was beyond the period of limitation, since
   it was filed in the year 1990, seeking to set aside the decree
   passed in the year 1985. Ordinarily, we would have remanded
 s this matter bac:;k ~o the High Court. However, considering the
   time taken so far in finalizing the rights of the parties, we
   proceed to decide this appeal on merits.

       9. The Trial Court, after correctly framing the issues, took
  the stock of all the four witnesses, namely, Dharam Singh (DW-
C 1), Record Keeper, Ram Singh (DW-2), Bailiff, S.K. Joshi (DW-
  3), Advocate and Daya Ram, the father of the respondents-
  defendants. The Court answered the first three issues in favour
  of the present appellant. Those issues pertain to:-
                  -
D         (i)     Ownership and joint possession of the suit land of
                  the plaintiff?

          (ii)    The decree passed on 26.3.1985 in Civil Suit No.
                  253 of 1985 being nullity.
E         (iii)       Recording the mutation No. 1093 dated 6.11.1985
                      being illegal and not binding on the rights of the
                      plaintiff?

        Taking stock of the evidence, the Trial Court took note of
F the improved version on the part of Daya Ram (DW-4) that the
  fc~ther .of the. appellant had demanded Rs.20,000/- and had then
  agreed to give share of ·chancier Pal to the respondents-
  defendants and that the said amount was paid through one ·
  Mam Chand, cousin brother of Daya Ram (DW-4). The Trial
G Court rightly noted that this was not only an improvement, but
  s·aid Mam Chand, through whom the amount was given, was
  never examined. The Trial Court also referred to the admission
  by Daya Ram (DW-4) that no money was ever given to the
  appellant for household expenses and that she had no source
H to maintain herself. From this, the Trial Court correctly deduced
           SANTOSH v. JAGAT RAM & ANR.                        439
                [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
that the person who is not having any source to maintain              A
himself/herself, could not part with his/her landed property as
well in the manner that the appellant did. The admissions by
S.K. Joshi (DW-3), Advocate to the effect that he and Shri K.L.
Yadav, Advocate, who appeared for the appellant in the earlier
suit and for the respondents-defendants in the present suit           B
 before the Trial Court, used to sit on the same seat and were
 the partners in .the same profession having a common Clerk.
 The Trial Court also noted the arguments on the side of the
 respondents to the effect that Daya Ram (DW-4) was looking
 after the appellant and that the appellant had filed a Written       c
 Statement. in the first case, the contents of which were well
 known to her and that she admitted the same as correct, as
asserted by S.K. Joshi (DW-3), Advocate, in his evidence.
 Furthermore, the Trial Court also noted the facts a~out the
Caveat having been filed by the respondents herein, the reply
                                                                      0
to which was filed by the appellant-plaintiff vide Exhibit DW3/
 D, wherein she had averred that she had voluntarily suffered
the impugned judgment and decree and that she did not
challenge the same. The Trial Court rightly found the story of
payment of Rs.20,000/- to be a myth, since it was nowhere
stated in the pleadings also. Further, the Trial Court also noted     E
that the appellant, who was an issueless widow and an illiterate
lady, was not at all being supported by Daya Ram and Daya
Ram being her elder brother in law, was in a position to
dominate and take advantage of her ignorance and illiteracy.
The Trial Court also inferred correctly from the fact that a Caveat   F
was filed in the year 1985 itself and the appellant was again
paraded to make a statement that she did not intend to
challenge the decree. As regards the question of limitation, the
Trial Court noted that the cause of action arose when
responde~ts started interfering with ownership and possession         G
of the appellant-plaintiff over the suit land about two and half
months before filing of the second suit and started asserting
about there having a decree in their favour in respect of the suit
land.
                                                                      H


                                                                          .   ,;•
    440      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [201 OJ 2 S.C.R.


A        10. As against this, when we see the judgment of the
  Appellate Court, there are number of material facts in the
   evidence, which have been ignored by the Appellate Court. The
   basic fact which has been ignored by the Appellate Court is
   that in the earlier Civil Suit No. 253 of 1985, the plaint was filed
B on that day, Written Statement was also filed on the same day,
   the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendant (appellant
   herein) was also recorded on the same day and the judgment
  was also made ready alongwith a decree on the same day. This,
   by itself, was sufficient to raise serious doubts in the mind of
c  the Courts. Instead, the Appellate Court went on to believe the
   evidence of Dharam Singh (DW-1), Record Keeper, who
   produced the files of the summons. One wonders as to when
  was the suit filed and when did the Court issue a summons and
  how is it that on the same day, the Written Statement was also
  ready, duly drafted by the other side lawyer S.K. Joshi (DW-
0
  3). Significantly enough, the Appellate Court has also relied on
  the evidence of S.K. Joshi (DW-3), who deposed about the
  appellant having come to him and instructed him to prepare the
  Written Statement (Exhibit DW3/A). In his evidence, S.K. Joshi
  (DW-3) has admitted specifically that there was a common
E clerk between him and the counsel for the plaintiff in the earlier
  suit and they used to sit on the same Takhat (seat). An
  impossible inference was drawn by the Appellate Court that the
  appellant was telling a blatant lie when she asserted .that she
  did not voluntarily suffer a decree. The Appellate Court has also
F mentioned about the File No. 5 dated 30.9.19.85, whfoti would
  be hardly about six months after the said decree passed on
  26.3.1985, which pertain to" the Caveat filed under Section 148-
  A of the CPC. We put a spec.ific question Shri Ahuja, Learned
  Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, as to whether
G in Haryana, on the basis of Caveats,. could summons be issued
  by the Civil Courts, so as to be served. on the other side
  through a Bailiff of the Court. The Learned Counsel was unable
  to support any such proceeding. As if all that was not sufficient,
  appellant was again brought to the Court in pursuance of the
H so-called summons served on her through Bailiff in the
            SANTOSH v. JAGAT RAM & ANR.                         441
                 [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
 proceedings under Section 148-A of the CPC and her                    A
 statement was also got recorded. It is not known as to how a
 Caveat application was got registered and a summons was
 sent on the basis of a Caveat application, treating it to be an
 independent proceedings. Such is not the scope of a Caveat
 under Section 148-A of the CPC. At least Shri Ahuja, Learned          B
 Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents could not
 support such a finding and he fairly stated that he was unaware
 of any such procedure. Nothing has been shown to us in the
 nature of an order passed by the Court on the basis of the so-
 called Caveat. We are convinced that this was nothing, but a          c
 very poor attempt to get the fate of the appellant sealed by
 getting her statement recorded. Instead of drawing the correct
 inferences, the Appellate Court went on to record the
 impossible findings. The Appellate Court seems to have been
 more disturbed by the fact that the appellant had challenged
                                                                       0
 the integrity of the counsel for the parties and asked a question
 as to why should the counsel for the respondent prepare a
 Written Statement against the wishes of the respondent. The
 Appellate Court went on to say:-

     "Merely because both the counsel sit on the same bench            E
-and have a common clerk and that the suit was decided on the
 same day when it was present in the Court, it would not, by itself,
 prove that the judgment and decree were obtained by fraud and
 misrepresentation."
                                                                       F
       To say that 'we are surprised', would be an
. understatement. To support this perverse finding, the Appellate
  Court went on to record the findings regarding the Caveat and
  the statement of the appellant recorded in those proceedings
  (?).We are fully convinced that this was nothing, but a towering     G
  fraud played upon an illiterate and helpless widow, whose
  whole inherited property was tried to be grabbed by Daya Ram
  and/or the respondents herein.

      11. Very unfortunately, all this has escaped the notice of
    442      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A the High Court, who passed a very casual judgment without
  being bothered about these glaring facts. We are of the firm
  opinion that a whole suit No. 253 of 1985, decree passed
  thereupon on 26.3.1985 and the subsequent Caveat
  proceedings were nothing but a systematic fraud. There cannot
B be a better example of a fraudulent decree. We are anguished
  to see the attitude of the Court, who passed the decree on the
  basis of a plaint and a Written Statement, which were filed on
  the same day. We are also surprised at the observations made
  by the Appellate Court that such circumstance could not, by
c itself, prove the fraudulent nature of the decree.

       12. A fraud puts an end to everything. It is a settled position
  in law that such decree is nothing, but a nullity. It has come in
  the evidence that when the respondents herein started
  disturbing the possession of the appellant and also started
D bragging about a decree having been obtained by them, the
  appellant chose to file a suit. In that view, her suit filed in 1990
  would be absolutely within time. The casual observation made
  by the High Court that her suit would be barred by limitation, is
  also wholly incorrect.
E
         13. On the basis of the conclusions that we have reached
    aboye, we proceed to set aside the judgment of the High Court,
    as well as of the Appellate Court and restore the judgment of
    the Trial Court. The appeal is allowed with the costs estimated
F   at Rs.25,000/-.

    K.K.T.                                          Appeal allowed.