Regular Second Appeal No.3474 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3474 of 2009 Date of decision: December 09, 2009 Dhoom Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Angoori Devi …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Ms Promila Nain, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. After remaining unsuccessful before the Courts below in his suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff is now before this Court in a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The plaintiff is husband of the defendant. According to the plaintiff, he was owner in possession of the suit property which was purchased by him from his own funds and some of which was got transferred from one Umed Singh. The defendant put pressure upon him to execute a Will in her favour. He was 56 years of age and remained ill. The defendant, with a malafide intention got signed some blank papers from him. After playing fraud upon him she also got executed and Regular Second Appeal No.3474 of 2009 -2- registered a relinquishment deed dated 24.9.2001 in her favour whereas he never appeared before the Sub Registrar. On the basis of the relinquishment deed, the defendant threatened to alienate the suit land and to interfere in his peaceful possession. Hence, the suit. While opposing the suit the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was a man of questionable habits of womanizing, consuming liquor and addicted to other vices. In order to avoid wastage of the suit property, the same was transferred by him in her favour as the suit land was ancestral agricultural land. The land was the only source of livelihood of hers and her three unmarried children and one physically handicapped daughter. The plaintiff was a retired person and drawing monthly pension of Rs.3000/-. He had also received retiral benefits amounting to Rs.12 lakh, out of which he had given Rs.2 lakh on loan and earning monthly interest of Rs.1500/-. Even out of the suit land, the plaintiff had sold 350 sq. yards for Rs.15 lakh and deposited it in the bank. The plaintiff had executed the relinquishment deed in her favour and he himself appeared before the Sub Registrar to get it registered. On the basis of the said deed, the defendant was owner and in possession of the suit property. No fraud was played upon the plaintiff by the defendant nor he remained in possession of the suit property. She, thus, prayed for Regular Second Appeal No.3474 of 2009 -3- dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff, while appearing as PW1, admitted that the relinquishment deed Ex.DW5/A bore his signatures as well as thumb impression. He also admitted that at the time of execution of relinquishment deed he was living with the defendant but at the time of filing the suit he lived separately from the defendant and children. He did not bring any material on record to substantiate his plea that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by mis-representation or any fraud was played upon him during execution and registration of the relinquishment deed. Once the deed stood registered, it was presumed to have been validly executed. As per the endorsement on the deed Ex.DW-5/A made by Sub Registrar, the plaintiff was present in person when he executed the deed. The deed bore the signatures of the plaintiff on all the pages as well as on the back side of the first page. Even from the spacing of the typed matter and signatures of the plaintiff it was clear that it had not been typed by using blank papers already signed by him. The plaintiff had been working in Escort Company Ltd. while the defendant is stated to be an illiterate person. It cannot be believed that the defendant could obtain the thumb impression and signatures of the plaintiff on some blank papers and, thereafter, forging a deed of relinquishment on the same. Regular Second Appeal No.3474 of 2009 -4- It stood mentioned in the deed that it was executed on account of love, affection and for the services rendered by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant, being wife of the plaintiff, had right to maintenance. As such, non-passing of any fiscal consideration would not invalidate the relinquishment deed. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below were on the basis of correct appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that they were either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity. They cannot be disturbed, and, that too, in a second appeal which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law posed by the plaintiff/appellant do not arise for determination. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed in limine. December 09, 2009. (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE