RSA No.4025 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4025 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:12.10.2010 Satbir ...Appellant Versus Karambir and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of 2/5th share in the agricultural land measuring 88 Kanals 19 Marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Dobhi and the release deed No.8793 dated 25.02.2004 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 regarding his share is a result of fraud and the mutation No.579 sanctioned on the basis of the impugned release deed is illegal, and the further prayer for injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit property or alienating the same, has been dismissed. In the present case, the bone of contention is the release deed dated 25.02.2004 (Ex.P3) which is purported to have been executed by the plaintiff himself in respect of his 2/5th share in the land measuring 88 Kanals 19 Marlas in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The Courts below have upheld the genuineness of the release deed as the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the element of fraud in its execution. The learned First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff had accompanied the defendants to the office of Sub Registrar. He has not RSA No.4025 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** disputed his signatures on the release deed (Ex.P3), bearing his photograph and was registered. The defendants had examined Daljit Singh, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar as DW4, who had categorically stated that the document (Ex.P3) was read over to both the parties. It was heard and understood to be correct and thereafter the plaintiff had signed it in his presence and thereafter he (Naib Tehsildar) had signed the said document. In the face of this evidence, the plaintiff has rightly not been believed by the Courts below where he had alleged that the document (Ex.P3) was not executed by him. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the release deed is not in the handwriting of the scribe and is not typed by him. He further submits that there was no family settlement between the parties pursuant to which released deed was executed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant in detail and perused the available record. The plaintiff has assailed the release deed (Ex.P3) only on the ground that it is an act of fraud and forgery, but his signatures have been proved on it and an independent person, namely, the Sub Registrar before whom the document was registered, has also entered into the witness box as DW4 and stated that the document was read over to him and after it was singed by the plaintiff, the same was signed by him. In view thereof, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to allege fraud or forgery in the execution of the release deed because the release deed also bears his photograph as well as the photographs of the witnesses. No other point has been raised. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no substantial question of law is involved and hence, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. October 12, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod JUDGE