RSA.No.2600 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA.No.2600 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.11.2011 Smt Parwati ....Appellant Versus Chiranji Lal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the present appeal under Section 100 CPC, plaintiff-appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby an appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narnaul dismissing the suit for declaration, has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a Civil Suit No.623 of 2002 for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 28 kanal, 16 marla and the release deed No.251 dated 1.6.2000 and mutation No.1949 dated 29.6.2000 entered and sanctioned in favour of the defendants- respondents are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside. Upon notice, the suit was opposed by filing reply. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. On an appeal having been filed, the same has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, hence the present second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that both the RSA.No.2600 of 2011 #2# learned courts below have gravely erred while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant as this is a clear case of fraud played upon the plaintiff-appellant and that the land measuring 21 kanal belonging to the plaintiff-appellant has been illegally usurped by the defendants- respondents by procuring a false and fictitious release deed on blank papers. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: “1. Whether release deed dated 1.6.2000 is illegal as alleged?OPP 2. Relief.” While deciding issue No.1, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the parties are inter-related as the plaintiff-appellant is widow of late Ramji Lal, who was the son of one Goria. On the other hand, defendants-respondents are sons of one Jaimal, who is also the son of said Goria. In this way, the parties are from one common descendant. It has also come on record that the plaintiff-appellant has no male issue rather she is having only one daughter, namely, Lalli, who is already married and living in her matrimonial home with her in- laws. It has also come on record that the plaintiff-appellant was owner in possession of the land measuring 28 kanal, 16 marla being a co- sharer in the total land measuring 125 kanal, 17 marla and release deed in respect of land measuring 21 kanal was executed in favour of RSA.No.2600 of 2011 #3# defendants-respondents. It has also come on record that real brother of the appellant- plaintiff, namely, Sultan (DW3), who is the attesting witness to the said release deed, has supported the case of the defendants in a very categoric term that the said release deed was executed by the plaintiff with her free will and consent and she relinquished her right to the extent of land measuring 21 kanal in favour of the defendants. Even, it is further stated by DW3 that the executant marked her thumb impression after considering the contents thereof as correct. Thereafter, DW3 and one Lakhi Ram Yadav, Advocate also signed the release deed. Furthermore, the case of the defendants is supported and corroborated by Tara Chand, Advocate/scribe-DW2 of the release deed (P.5), who testified that the release deed was typed at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant and thereafter its contents were readover and explained to the executant and then she marked her thumb impressions in token of its correctness. Learned trial Court also observed that the plaintiff-appellant while appearing as PW1 has nowhere stated that the scribe and attesting witness had any enmity towards her. Both the courts below have concurrently found that no fraud has been played upon the plaintiff-appellant rather the release deed was executed with free will and consent and that too was not regarding the entire land of the plaintiff-appellant but only of 21 kanal out of 28 kanal 6 marla belonging to her. In this regard, the relevant finding of learned first appellate Court as recorded in para Nos.12 & 13 RSA.No.2600 of 2011 #4# of its judgment is reproduced hereunder: “12. The release deed was not executed in favour of a stranger rather the defendants are sons of the brother of the plaintiff's husband and again according to DW3 mother of the defendants is also the real sister of DW3 and as such again mother of the defendants and plaintiff are real sisters and in this family background sufferance of the release deed is a natural event. In addition to this, the whole of the land recorded in the name of the plaintiff was not got mentioned in the release deed, rather 21 kanals of land out of 28 kanals 6 marlas is the subject matter of release deed. Xxx xxx xxxx 13. When the real brother was a attesting witness of the release deed and whole of the property was not got transferred under the release deed, the plea of fraud as alleged could not be substantiated on record rather sufferance of the release deed in favour of nearest family member appears to be the natural transaction as the plaintiff has no male issue.” From the abovesaid findings, it is apparently clear that no fraud at all was committed with the plaintiff-appellant while executing the release deed No.251 dated 1.6.2000 rather the same is the result of her free consent and both the courts below have concurrently recorded this finding of fact. Plaintiff-appellant has miserably failed to prove the factum of fraud played with her by the defendants-respondents. No substantial question of law point is involved in this case, which is sine qua non for entertaining an appeal under Section 100 CPC. Dismissed. November 09, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE RSA.No.2600 of 2011 #5#