RSA No. 629 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 629 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.12.2010 Sudesh Kumari .... Appellant Versus Harnam Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Harindar Kumar Aurora, Advocate for the appellant. **** L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by plaintiff Sudesh Kumari having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Appellant-plaintiff filed suit against defendant-respondent Harnam Singh alleging that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Previously plaintiff's father Rattan Singh was owner in possession of the suit land. Rattan Singh executed will dated 11.8.1998 in favour of plaintiff. After the death of Rattan Singh, the plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant has forged and fabricated a sale deed dated 14.01.1983 in his favour regarding sale of suit land by Rattan Singh. But in fact Rattan Singh never executed said sale deed, which is also without consideration. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that sale deed dated 14.01.1983 regarding the suit land is null and void and liable to be set aside. In the alternative, the plaintiff also claimed relief of possession of the suit land along with permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the same. Defendant denied the plaint allegations. It was alleged that RSA No. 629 of 2010 -2- plaintiff has no concern with the suit land. Defendant is owner of the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 14.01.1983. The plaintiff is not related to Rattan Singh nor Rattan Singh executed any will in favour of the plaintiff. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff examined registration Clerk Varinder Singh PW-1 and Shaukin Singh PW-3 attesting witness of the will to prove the registered will dated 11.08.1998 executed by Rattan Singh in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself stepped into witness box as PW-2 and stated as per her version. On the other hand, defendant appeared as DW-1 and deposed in support of his version. The defendant has also examined Bakhshish Singh DW-2 and Satwinder Singh DW-3 both attesting witnesses of impugned sale deed. They have stated that the said sale deed was executed by Rattan Singh in favour of defendant on receipt of sale consideration of Rs.5000/-. The main issue to be decided in this case is regarding sale deed dated 14.01.1983 being forged and fabricated or otherwise. The plaintiff has challenged the same alleging it to be forged and fabricated. However, there is only self serving bold and oral statement of the plaintiff in this regard. Obviously the said statement is not sufficient to prove that the sale RSA No. 629 of 2010 -3- deed has been forged and fabricated. On the other hand, registration of the sale deed adds to its authenticity. Moreover, defendant has examined two attesting witnesses of the sale deed and they have stated about due execution of the sale deed by Rattan Singh in favour of defendant. Their statements could not be impeached in cross-examination. Bakhshish Singh also remained Sarpanch of the village from 1972 to 1992 and was thus Sarpanch at the time of execution of the aforesaid sale deed. Evidence led by the defendant is cogent and sufficient to prove due execution of the impugned sale deed by Rattan Singh in favour of defendant. On the contrary, plaintiff is not witness or party to the sale deed and her oral statement that it was not executed by Rattan Singh is not sufficient to prove this fact. Both the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence have come to concurrent finding against the plaintiff-appellant. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the impugned sale deed is forged and fabricated and was not executed by Rattan Singh. Finding of the courts below in this regard is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE December 9, 2010 'raj'