RSA No.3717 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3717 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 03.03.2011 Angrez Kaur ……Appellant Versus Nikka Singh …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. R. K. S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Angrez Kaur-plaintiff, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant is step sister of defendant-respondent Nikka Singh. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that she along with defendant and other legal heirs of their father Wariam Singh were in possession of 10 biswas land of khasra No.284 (not the suit property) as Gair Marusi. The defendant asked the plaintiff to sell the said land. However, the defendant by fraud and misrepresentation got impugned sale deed dated 30.05.2002 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant regarding suit land measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas 4 biswansis. Said sale deed has been challenged in the suit. The plaintiff sought declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit land and the impugned sale deed is illegal, null and void. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction. Defendant while admitting the relationship between the parties broadly denied the other plaint allegations. It was denied that RSA No.3717 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that defendant has purchased the suit land from the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 30.05.2002. The sale deed was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses and was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar. Plea of fraud and misrepresentation etc. was denied. The sale deed was pleaded to be valid and genuine. Defendant claimed to be in physical possession of the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2008 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that on the pretext of selling joint land of khasra No.284, the defendant obtained the impugned sale deed from the plaintiff by fraud and misrepresentation. The contention cannot be accepted. Testimony of PW-1 Bant Singh examined by the plaintiff was completely impeached in cross-examination. He tried to support the plaintiff’s version that the sale deed was got executed by misrepresentation, but in cross-examination, he stated that he had never seen the impugned sale deed. He is also not witness of the sale deed. He learnt of the sale deed from the general public. Even RSA No.3717 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - the plaintiff did not disclose the sale deed to this witness. It is thus manifest that this witness was not present at the time of execution of the impugned sale deed and, therefore, his testimony that the sale deed was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud carries no probative value. Similarly testimony of Daljit Singh PW-2 has been completely shaken. He even claimed ignorance about his affidavit of examination-in-chief. He signed the affidavit without admitting correctness of its contents. This witness was also not present with the plaintiff-appellant at the time of execution of the impugned sale deed. Consequently, his testimony also carries no evidentiary value to prove the version of the plaintiff. This witness claimed to have seen the impugned sale deed in the possession of the plaintiff- appellant. However, the sale deed could not be with the plaintiff- appellant. This witness also admitted possession of defendant- respondent over the suit land. Statement of plaintiff-appellant as PW-3 is also no better. She alleged that her son disclosed to her about the impugned sale deed, but did not remember when. The plaintiff also claimed knowledge of the sale deed from the very next day of its execution. The plaintiff also denied having made any application to panchayat or police regarding alleged fraud and misrepresentation, but defendant has led evidence that such an application was moved and on inquiry by Deputy Superintendent of Police, it was found that plaintiff- appellant had received the sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. Knowledge of the sale deed to the plaintiff also implies that she had voluntarily executed it. RSA No.3717 of 2010 (O & M) - 4 - Defendant has led sufficient evidence to prove that the sale deed was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff. Defendant has examined both attesting witnesses of the sale deed as well as its scribe. All of them have stated that the sale deed was readover and explained to the plaintiff-appellant, who thumb marked the same after admitting it as correct. All these witnesses have proved due execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff. Registration of the sale deed further adds to its authenticity. Even before the Sub-Registrar, the sale deed was readover and explained to the plaintiff-appellant, who thumb marked the same after admitting its contents. The sale deed also bears photograph of plaintiff vendor, defendant vendee and both the witnesses. Plaintiff admitted her photograph on the sale deed. It is thus manifest that defendant has led sufficient credible evidence to prove due execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff- appellant. Sale deed executed by defendant in favour of Kura Singh on the same date regarding some other land has no nexus with the impugned sale deed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant stated that the said other sale deed was executed by defendant only and not by the plaintiff also as co-vendor. Consequently, it cannot be said that the impugned sale deed has been obtained from the plaintiff under the pretext of selling other land of khasra No.284. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, it becomes manifest that due execution of the impugned sale deed by plaintiff has been duly proved by defendant by leading overwhelming cogent and reliable evidence whereas the plaintiff-appellant has miserably failed to prove that the sale deed was obtained from her by fraud and RSA No.3717 of 2010 (O & M) - 5 - misrepresentation. Concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below against the plaintiff-appellant 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 misappreciation of evidence and, therefore, the said finding does not call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 03.03.2011. A.kaundal