R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 8.4.2011 Rattani Bai ......Appellant Versus Savitri Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 20.1.1998 and mutation sanctioned in pursuance thereto. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she was owner in possession of the land measuring 14 kanals 18 marlas bearing khasra No.97//20/2/1 (3-8), 98//14/2 (6-7), 15/2/2/1 (4-7), 98//15/2/2/2 (0-16). The plaintiff had cultivated 5 kanals 3 marlas of land adjacent to the road bearing khasra No.98//15/2/2/1 (4-7), 98//15/2/2/2 (0-16). Defendants No. 2 to 4 were property dealers and plaintiff had talked R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2011(O&M) 2 to them qua sale of her land. In the garb of execution of agreement to sell, defendants No.2 to 4 got the thumb impressions of the plaintiff on various documents. The plaintiff had not executed any sale deed or lease deed in favour of the defendants. Defendants in their written statement averred that the plaintiff was owner of 14 kanals 18 marlas of land and she had sold specific portion measuring 16 marlas bearing 98//15/2/2/2 adjacent to the road to defendant No.3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deed dated 20.1.1998 based on fraud and misrepresentation? OPP 3. If issue No.1 is proved, its effect ? OPP 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation ? OPP 5. Whether the defendant No.1 is bona fide purchaser with consideration? OPD 6. Whether less court fee has been affixed on the plaint ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct for bringing the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit has been filed against a dead person and its effect? OPD 9. Whether the present suit is barred under Section 10 CPC ? OPD R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2011(O&M) 3 11. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that she had not executed any sale deed or lease deed in favour of the defendants and a fraud had been played upon her by the defendants. The plaintiff had been taken to the Tehsildar office and her thumb impressions had been taken on various papers. However, the plaintiff failed to discharge the said onus that the sale deed in question was a result of fraud. Admittedly, the plaintiff is owner of the suit land. The plaintiff admitted the execution of the agreement to sell dated 20.1.1988 and receipt of earnest money of ` 5,000/-. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 08, 2011 anita