R.S.A.No. 2431 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2431 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.2.2011 Baldev Singh ......Appellant Versus Virender Narban and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the appellant **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the release deed dated 24.11.2003 and subsequent mutation sanctioned on the basis thereon. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was owner in possession of the suit land. Defendants were sons of the plaintiff. Plaintiff wanted to execute a Will in favour of the defendants. However, the defendants got executed the release dated 24.11.2003 regarding the suit property from the plaintiff by taking undue advantage of the relationship between the parties. The release R.S.A.No. 2431 of 2010 2 deed in question was a result of fraud. Defendants, in their written statement averred that the relinquishment deed had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. The averments regarding fraud/ mis-representation in the plaint by the defendants were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration that the release deed dated 24.11.2003 and mutation sanctioned on its basis are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner? OPP 3. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2009. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2009 passed by District Judge, Kurukshetra. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The release deed in question is dated 24.11.2003. A perusal of the plaint itself reveals that in para No.3, it has been R.S.A.No. 2431 of 2010 3 averred by the plaintiff that the original release deed was handed over to him after its execution. In these circumstances, it cannot be believed that the plaintiff had no knowledge about the contents of the release deed. The suit was, however, filed by the plaintiff in December 2007 on the plea that the plaintiff had come to know about the release deed a month prior to the filing of the suit. The said plea of the plaintiff, apparently, was not a genuine one as the plaintiff was liable to know about the contents of the release deed, which had been handed over to him after its execution. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. Plaintiff had also failed to establish that the release deed was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The release deed in question is a registered document and hence, it cannot be said that, in fact, the plaintiff had got registered a Will instead of release deed. Plaintiff had appeared before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the release deed. At the time of registration, the contents of the release deed must have been read over to the plaintiff by the Sub Registrar. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 15, 2011 anita