RSA No.852 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.852 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 29.04.2010 Mahender Singh and others .. Appellants Versus Karta Ram .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Arun Singal, Advocate for the appellants. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent challenging the Relinquishment Deed made in favour of the appellants by the brother of the respondent. The brief facts are that the respondent and his brother had purchased certain land (respondent 5/6th share, brother 1/6th share) in the year, 1972. The brother Dhanni Ram died in June, 2002. Thereafter, the respondent filed the instant suit claiming that he had inherited the property of Dhanni Ram and also challenging the Relinquishment Deed dated 23.01.2002 alleged to have been executed in favour of the appellants by the said Dhanni Ram. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the allegation of fraud had not been proved by the respondent-plaintiff. In appeal, the learned Lower Appellate Court took three grounds. The first ground was that in his statement, the respondent had stated that the Relinquishment Deed had been obtained by fraud. The learned Lower Appellate Court held that by making the statement, the RSA No.852 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: respondent had discharged the initial burden and that thereafter it was for the appellants to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the said deed which they could not do. Learned Court also noticed that at the time of Relinquishment Deed, Dhanni Ram was 98 years old and further that since the property was purchased, it could not have been transferred by way of Relinquishment Deed. Consequently, as mentioned-above, the learned Lower Appellate Court accepted the plea and decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether Fraud in execution of a document could be proved by mere statement of a party or fraud has to be proved by leading a cogent evidence ? (ii) Whether a relinquishment deed executed in favour of the nephews by the uncle is legal ? (iii) Whether a Fact not specifically denied by the opposite party need to be proved by leading evidence ? (iv) Whether the Ld. Lower appellate court has misread the evidence to hold that deceased was not residing with the appellants ? In my opinion, the salient fact is whether Dhanni Ram could execute the Relinquishment Deed in favour of his nephews in respect of self-acquired property. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in the written statement, the plea was taken that Dhanni Ram had obtained the money to purchase the land only by sale of his ancestral property and this allegation was not specifically denied. Consequently, it had to have been held to be admitted that Dhanni Ram purchased this property only by selling the ancestral property and therefore, this property was also ancestral. In the replication, the plea taken was that the property was not ancestral. In my opinion, it was not necessary for the respondent RSA No.852 of 2010 (O & M) ::3:: to take specific plea regarding the allegation that the property had been purchased by selling the ancestral property. Once he had taken the plea that it was not ancestral property, it was for the appellants to prove that to purchase this property, the ancestral property had been sold. The learned Lower Appellate Court has on fact found that the appellants were not able to prove that the property was ancestral in the hands of Dhanni Ram. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that this finding of fact is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC Once, I uphold the finding that the property was not proved to be ancestral in the hands of Dhanni Ram, there is no question that it could have been transferred by way of a Relinquishment Deed. Hence, question Nos.(ii) to (iv) are rendered academic. Consequently, holding all the proposed questions against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, therefore, the stay application as well as the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 29, 2010 sukhpreet