R.S.A No. 3005 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3005 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : December 05, 2008. Amarjit Kaur and others ... Appellants. Versus Kirpal Kaur and others ... Respondent. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants wherein they had prayed that a sale deed dated 6.1.1959, executed by their predecessor-in-interest, was invalid having been obtained by fraud and, in fact a forgery. The twin-pillars of the case of the appellants were rested upon their assertion that their predecessor-in-interest did not sign in Urdu and that the respondents had admitted that the page of the original sale deed on which the signatures of the seller were appended had been torn and, thus, the respondents had not been able to prove the sale deed, in view of the provisions of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Both the Courts below considered the evidence and found as a R.S.A No. 3005 of 2007 ::2:: fact that the appellants had not been able to prove that the sale deed dated 6.1.1959 did not bear the signatures of their predecessor-in-interest. The second argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had discharged their initial onus by proving that their predecessor-in-interest signed in Punjabi by placing on record document which had been signed by the aforesaid predecessor-in-interest both prior and subsequent to the execution of the sale deed dated 6.1.1959, and that thereafter their onus had shifted upon the respondents to prove the sale deed cannot be accepted. No doubt, in every civil suit onus can shift from side to side. However, it is also true that basic onus can never shift. In the present case, the appellants had specifically challenged the sale deed on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest had not signed the same. In the circumstances, the onus to prove that fact could not shift. Besides, it cannot be lost sight of that the sale deed was executed in the year 1959, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants died in the year 1987 and the present suit was filed in the 1999. Even if it is assumed that the suit was not hit by the bar of limitation (as has been canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants), still the fact remains that the appellants challenged some thing which had transpired 40 years before and in the opinion of the Courts below were not able to prove the same. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are either perverse or cannot be held to be not arising from the material on record. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. December 05, 2008 ( AJAY TEWARI ) `kk' JUDGE R.S.A No. 3005 of 2007 ::3::