IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1483 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 08, 2011. Bag Singh. ...... APPELLANT Versus Rakesh Kumar. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.4126-C of 2011 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, appellant is allowed to make good the deficiency in court fee. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already made good the deficiency in the court fee. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. CM No.4127-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1483 of 2011 RSA No.1483 of 2011(O&M) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka vide which the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and have gone through the whole record including impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. Briefly stated, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for decree of declaration that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute and sale deed dated 10.04.1997 in favour of respondent-defendant is illegal, null and void and result of fraud. On notice being issued, plea has been taken that defendant purchased the land in dispute from the appellant-plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.60,000/- and he executed a sale deed and got the same registered from the Sub Registrar. Plea has also been taken that possession has also been delivered by the plaintiff on the spot and since then he (defendant) has been continuing in possession. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that a fraud has been committed upon him by respondent-defendant with whom he was dealing as Commission Agent. He further contended that no consideration was paid to him and hence, the sale deed is null and void. 2 RSA No.1483 of 2011(O&M) However, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. Law is well settled that fraud is to be specifically pleaded and proved by adducing cogent, reliable and trust- worthy evidence. In the present case, there is solitary statement of present appellant-plaintiff that the sale deed is illegal, null and void and he has been continuing in possession of the property in dispute. Learned Courts below have rightly placed reliance upon Abdul Bhim and others Vs. S.K. Andul Zabar and others 2009 (3) Civil Court Cases 37 that in case of a registered document, there is a presumption that it has been validly executed and it is for the other party questioning genuineness of the document to show that the transaction was not validly gone into. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 08, 2011 JUDGE Sachin M. 3