IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1965 of 2004 Date of decision: 23.02.2010 Saudagar Singh ..Appellant Versus Modan Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate with Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the respondent . . . AJAY TEWARI. J This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement dated 1.10.1990 with respect to 7 Marlas of land in Kurali. In the written statement, the respondent took up the specific plea that the appellant was working initially as Clerk and then as a Junior Counsel with Sh.H.S.Paul, Advocate of Ropar and during the pendency of that particular litigation, he got the signatures of the respondent on blank papers. In replication, a general averment was made that the contents of Para 2 of the written statement are wrong and denied and many other substantiative averments were also made. Yet there was no specific denial to the stand that the appellant was at the relevant time working as a Clerk/Junior Counsel to Sh.H.S.Paul. Even in the examination-in-chief, the appellant did not specificially depose that he had never worked with Sh.H.S.Paul. It was in these circumstances that both the Courts below came to the conclusioon that the preponderance of RSA No.1965 of 2004 -2- probability was tilted towards the case of the respondent and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Following questions have been proposed:- (1) Whether it was heavy onus upon the defendant to prove the plea of fraud when the signatures on the agreement to sell are admitted ? (2) Whether the plea of fraud is to be proved beyond reasonable doubts irrespective of the fact whether it is a civil case or criminal case ? (3) Whether the courts below have acted on mere surmises and conjectures and believed the defendant without any iota of evidence in his favour ? (4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed ? In respect thereof, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Durlabh Singh Vs. Nahar Singh & another, 1991 Civil Court Cases, 693 and Union of India Vs. M/s Chaturbhai M.Patel & Co., 1976 SC 712. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the person who alleges fraud must prove it. However, the attendant circumstances cannot be lost sight of. It is well known that the only place where a person, educated or illiterate signs blank paper without a second thought is in lawyer's office. Consequently, even the nature of onus in a particular case would change with the circumstances. In view of the fact that the appellant did not deny specifically that at the relevent time, he was employed with Sh.H.S.Paul, it cannot be said that the findings of fact in this behalf arrived at by the Courts below are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding all the questions proposed RSA No.1965 of 2004 -3- against the appellant, this appeal stands dismissed. As the main case has been decided, accordingly, the C.M., if any, stands disposed of accordingly. February 23, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE