RSA No. 3399 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3399 of 2008 Decided on : 31-03-2009 Pawan Kumar ....Appellant VERSUS Mangat Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the appellant MAHESH GROVER, J This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 11.10.2005 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 16.2.2008. The appellant filed a suit for injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of plot no.42 meant for shop in New Mandi Township at Pundri. He pleaded that he had purchased this shop in the open auction and that respondent Mangat Ram is his cousin who had obtained his signatures on some blank papers and by practising fraud and thereafter in collusion with the officers of the Market Committee, respondent no.1- Mangat Ram had managed to become the owner of the suit property. It was pleaded that he never intended to transfer the suit property in favour of respondent no.1 and never executed the documents willingly. Respondent no.1-Mangat Ram pleaded that suit property was transferred in the year 1986 and an affidavit and indemnity bond and an application for transfer of the property had been executed by the appellant RSA No. 3399 of 2008 2 which were submitted in the office of the Administrator on the basis of which the suit property was transferred in his name. He has paid transfer fee of Rs.5,000/- for the said property. It was further pleaded that he had since transferred the said property in the name of Uma Goel in the year 1995, who is now actual owner in possession of the suit property. Market Committee impleaded as respondent no.2 supported the case of respondent no.1-Mangat Ram. Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD. 5. Relief. Both the Courts concluded that appellant failed to establish fraud pleaded by him. Rather a categoric finding was returned that he admitted the execution of documents and subsequent transfer of the property in favour of respondent no.1. Suit of the appellant was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, the plaintiff-appellant is in regular second appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and that there has been a mis-reading of the entire evidence. Therefore, the RSA No. 3399 of 2008 3 impugned judgements deserve to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellant has pleaded that he is the owner of the property comprised in plot no.42 which is not disputed but he had pleaded that the property was got transferred by respondent no.1 by practicing fraud upon him. Although the respondents had set up a plea that the property had been transferred voluntarily. It is a settled principle of law that a person who pleads fraud has to prove and establish it beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to suggest that such a fraud had been practised upon the appellant. Except for the oral testimony there is no other evidence to this effect. The plot was transferred in favour of respondent no.1 in the year 1986 who further transferred the same in favour of one Uma Goel in the year 1995. Obviously all these transactions were to the knowledge of the appellant who did not raise any objection till 1997 when the suit was filed. That apart, it has been noticed by the learned First Appellate Court that initially in the pleadings the appellant had set up a plea that the documents regarding transfer of the plot were got executed by obtaining signatures of the appellant on some documents which were written in English in collusion with the officers of the Market Committee. However, in his testimony, he has set up a totally new case by stating that he had given the property on rent to Mangat Ram who had obtained his signatures on the pretext of obtaining a licence of committee agent. In his cross-examination, the appellant admitted that he himself had filed an application dated 19th March, 1986 before the Administrator, New Mandi Township for transfer of the plot in favour of Mangat Ram. Once this fact had been admitted then the RSA No. 3399 of 2008 4 entire plea which has been raised regarding fraudulent execution of the documents becomes meaningless. In this view of the matter and for the reasons stated above, the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant any interference in a regular second appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. March 31 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge