RSA No.5036 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5036 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:08.11.2010. Smt. Kelo Devi ...Appellant Versus Mamu and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which her suit for declaration and joint possession with permanent injunction, has been dismissed. The case set up by the plaintiff is that she is owner in possession of 6 Kanals 6 Marlas of land by virtue of mutation No.859 entered in her favour after the death of her father Parshada. The defendant Nos.1 to 7 approached the plaintiff and defendant No.8 to give their surety as they wanted to purchase a tractor. On 06.07.2004, defendant No.7 took the plaintiff and defendant No.8 to Tehsil Complex Pehowa for the purpose of execution of surety deed and obtained their thumb impressions on certain stamp papers which were lateron found to be release deed No.6552/1 dated 06.07.2004 purported to have been executed by the plaintiff and defendant No.8 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 7. It was then alleged that the defendant Nos.1 to 7 had played a fraud. In the written statement filed by defendant Nos.3 to 7, it was alleged that RSA No.5036 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ******* the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land who had relinquished the same in favour defendant Nos.1 to 7 by way of release deed (Ex.P1) on the basis of which mutation No.872 is also sanctioned. It was also alleged that the plaintiff has now become dishonest and in order to wriggle out of the aforesaid transaction, a concocted story has been projected before the Court. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not file any written statement. Defendant No.8 adopted the written statement filed by defendant Nos.3 to 7. Though defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 were proceeded against ex-parte in appeal. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed various issues and after obtaining evidence, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that there is no fraud played by defendant Nos.1 to 7 upon the plaintiff and defendant No.8 as the release deed (Ex.P1) bears the photographs of the plaintiff along with her husband Pala Ram, therefore, it was a conscious act on the part of the plaintiff to execute the release deed in consultation with her husband. It was found that had there been a fraud, the plaintiff would have reported the matter to the police or even to some higher authorities, but no such step is alleged to have been taken. On the other hand, the defendants had examined DW2, DW3 and DW5, who has proved the entry of release deed in his register as the same was scribed by him. The Courts below have held that the plea of fraud has to be proved like a charge proved in a criminal case and as the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence in respect of fraud, the Courts below have held that the release deed was executed by her voluntarily. In this second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has basically repeated the facts and has alleged that the plaintiff, being a rustic villager, has been cheated and defrauded by defendant Nos.1 to 7, but he has failed to prove ingredients of fraud especially when the release deed bears the photographs of the plaintiff and her husband. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that RSA No.5036 of 2009 (O&M) -3- ******* defendant Nos.1 to 7 had taken the plaintiff to the Tehsil Complex for the purpose of execution of surety bond and not for the purpose of execution of release deed in their favour. As a matter of fact, the appellant has not raised any substantial question of law nor it is involved in this appeal as per the facts and circumstances, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. November 08, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE