IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR H Second Agpeal No.294rof 2004 APPELLANTSI: 1. Dhanaram, aged about 48 years, son (Defendants) bf Shri Hari Ram Kanwar, R/o Sukhamuda, iTah. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) BantQram, aged about 45 years Hariram Kanwar, resident of village Sukhaguda, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Chamar Singh, son of Mohar Singh, aged about 68 years, resident of viliage Sukhamuda, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Plaintiff (Dndants Ram sai, aged about 53 years son of Kriparam, resident of villageKaya, Ta‘h. Gha’rghora, District Raigarh (C.G.) Shivnath, so’n of Kriparam, aged about 8 years, resident of village Kaya, Tah. Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Balakram, aged about 43, years son o hri Kriparam, resident of village Kaya, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Nanki, aged about 38 years son of Shri Kriparam, resident of viliage Kaya, Tah. harghora, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh) S hh e tate of C‘attisgarh, through th Collector, District Raigarh (CG) {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of'CiVil Procedure, 1908} i Present: Mr. A.N. Bhakta, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondent No.1. H Mr. U.K_ Singh Chandel, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6. RESPONDENTS: Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J RAL JUDGMEN ‘ (26-1 0-201 Q)‘ , 1‘ } efe) . 4 f ' S G ( O T . By this second appeal under Section 100 of the .P.C., the appellants have challenged Iegality & propriety of the judgment & decree dated 20- 3-2004 passed by the 4th Additionar District Judge (F.T.c.), Raigarh in Civil Appeal No.10A/2003, affirming the judgment & decree dated 10-12- 2001 passed by the 1st Ctvil Judge Class-Il, Dharamjaigarh in Civil Suit" No.28A/98, whereby by decreeing the suit, learned Civil Judge Class-II has ‘declared the alleged saledeed void and also. directed for possessmn s per pleadings of the parties, respondent No.1 herein has not sold any land to Dhanaram, appellant No.1 herein, vide registered sale deed ated 20-5—87 and has not executed any sale deed. As per his allegation,’appellant No.1 herein has committed forgery in execution of sale deed. On the aforesaid ground suit for declaration of sale deed null and void, and declaration of title and possession was tiled before the trial ourt. By ming written statement, the appellants herein have denied the adverse allegations and have pleaded that respondent No.1 herein has executed sale deed before the witnesses after receiving consideration of Rs.6,000l— and they have not forged the document. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court has held that respondent No.1 herein has not executed any sale deed in favour of appellant No.1 Dhanaram and same was afdrmed by the lower appellate Court in appeal. . i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused judgment & decree. and records of both the Courts below. . Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that respondent No.1 was under obligation to prove that the document alleged sale deed was forged, but respondent No.1 has not examined any witness t discharge the aforesaid burden which was on him. . On 'the‘other hand, Iearned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellants particularly, appellant No.1 hanaram was beneficiary. of the document and, therefore, he was required to prove genuineness of sale deed in terms of Section 101‘ofw he Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but for the reasons best known to him he has not filed sale deed, he has not tried for examination of signature of respondent No.1 by expert to prove the fact that respondent No.1 has executed sale deed and even after filing of application for production of ‘ . d C o D i t C . A 3 \ document i.e. sale deed, for the reasons best known to the appellants, the appellants have not filed original sale deed, though they were in possession of the same. These facts are sufhcient for drawing inference that the alleged sale deed was not genuine and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. Definitely, appellant No.1 herein Was beneficiary of the document, he was under obligation to file the document and to prove its genuine” V execution. Respondent No.1 herein has pleaded and examined witnesses that he has not executed any sale deed in favour of appellant No.1 herein and appellant No.1 has succeeded in execution of sale deed in the name of respondent No.1 with the help of one Kriparam. The ppellants herein have admitted in their evidence that they are in ossession of sale deed, but they have not filed the original sale deed. Respondent No.1 has applied for production of document i.e. sale deed which was opposed by the appellants and vide order dated 3—2-2000, 1‘“ ivil Judge Class—l, Dharamjaigarh has dismissed the application for production of document for examination 'by expert on behalf of thew plaintiff. In these circumstances, no option was left to respondent No.1 for examination of document by expert. , ln the present case, appellant No.1 was in possession of document, he as withheld the document and he himself has not tried for examination of document by expert. Virtually, he has withheld the evidence relating to genuineness of document including the document. ln these circumstances, both the Courts below have decreed the suit and ismissed the appeal against the appellants. Both the Courts below have not committed any illegality. l do not-find any substantial question, of Iaw for decision of this second appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. )P704 tnds pd o 8. M.(C..No.33/20 sa disose f. . a p C h d I