RSA No.4844 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. RSA No.4844 of 2011(O&M) Karnail Singh ......Appellant v. Salinder Singh and another ......Respondents 2. RSA No.4867 of 2011 (O&M) Karnail Singh .....Appellant v. Salinder Singh and others ......Respondents Date of Decision: December 9, 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ajay Singla, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of both the aforementioned appeals filed against judgments and decrees dated 7.9.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, dismissing appeals filed by present appellant against judgment and decree dated 8.9.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which two suits, i.e., one filed by present appellant plaintiff bearing RSA No.4844 of 2011(O&M) -2- Civil Suit No.104 dated 11.6.1997 was dismissed and however, another suit bearing No.626 of 23.4.1998 filed by respondents-defendants was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, parties are closely related. Appellant is brother of respondent-defendant no.2 and respondent-defendant no.1 is husband of respondent-defendant no.2. Sale deeds dated 24.7.1996 and 7.8.1996 were executed by present appellant in favour of respondents-defendants. Both the sale deeds are registered documents. There are recital in both the sale deeds regarding receipt of sale consideration by the present appellant. No objection was taken at the time of registration of such sale deeds that consideration was not received by him. Suit has been filed by present appellant for getting the sale deeds set aside on the ground that no consideration was paid to him and that it was promised that sale consideration would be paid later on and, however, the same was never paid by the respondents. Another suit was filed by respondents-defendants for permanent injunction restraining the present appellant from interfering in their possession and from cutting the wheat crop from the land in dispute. Suit filed by present appellant was dismissed by learned trial Court while suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8.9.2000. Two appeals were filed by present appellant against the said judgment and decree. Both appeals were dismissed by learned first appellate Court, i.e., learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur. Against the said judgments passed by RSA No.4844 of 2011(O&M) -3- learned first appellate Court, Hoshiarpur, the present appeals have been filed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that payment of consideration to appellant has not been proved and that appellant is yet to recover a sum of `1,92,000/- from the respondents- defendants. It is further contended that recital in the sale deeds regarding payment of consideration was not challenged by the present appellant as he is closely related to respondents-defendants. Hence, it is contended that a fraud has been committed upon the present appellant as the sale deeds were got executed without paying any consideration. However, there is no force in this contention of learned counsel for the appellant. Law is well settled that a party who is pleading fraud or coercion regarding a transaction has to specifically plead and prove the same. However in the present case, there is only a vague assertion that consideration was not paid, which is contrary to the recital in the registered sale deeds, which were not challenged by the present appellants. Registered sale deed carries a presumption that a transaction is a genuine one. On appreciation of evidence, it has been held by both the Courts below that appellant-plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus that no consideration was paid to him by respondents-defendants. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below 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 RSA No.4844 of 2011(O&M) -4- based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in these second appeals. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in these second appeal. Accordingly both the aforesaid appeals are dismissed in limine. 9.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge