R.S.A. No. 3379 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3379 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.3.2011 Devi Ram and another ......Appellants Versus Monu and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the gift deed. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was 90 years old and was suffering from senile dementia. Dharambir-defendant No.3 was born out of the wedlock of Dhakeli, his wife with Tejpal. Thereafter, the plaintiff got married with Dhakeli and had brought up defendant No.3 as his own son. Defendant No.3 in collusion with defendant No.2 got the signatures of the plaintiff on blank papers and forged the gift deed in question qua land measuring 13 marlas bearing khasra No. 61// 7/2. The impugned gift deed was a result of forgery and misrepresentation. R.S.A. No. 3379 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the gift deed regarding mentioned in para no.11 of the plaint is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court ? OPD. 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.2009, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nuh dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld in an appeal by Additional District Judge, Nuh, filed by legal representatives of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2009. Hence, the present appeal by legal representatives of the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit challenging the gift deed in question. In order to prove his case plaintiff examined five witnesses including R.S.A. No. 3379 of 2010 (O&M) 3 himself. Examination-in-chief of the said witnesses were recorded and their cross-examination was deferred. However, thereafter the witnesses did not appear in the witness box for cross-examination. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order. Since the plaintiff had failed to lead evidence in support of his case, the Courts below had no option but to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 7, 2011 Anand