R. S. A. No. 3360 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3360 of 2007 Date of Decision : June 30, 2010 Smt. Mewa .... Appellant Vs. Dharampal Gupta and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P. R. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Smt. Mewa – plaintiff, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal. Plaintiff's case is that defendant-respondent no.8 approached the plaintiff and her husband on 18.07.1995 and proposed to purchase the suit land from the plaintiff for Rs.23,98,593.75 paise and plaintiff and her husband were brought by defendant no.8 to Panchayat Bhawan, Gurgaon on 18.07.1995 and a document was got prepared by defendant no.8, who obtained thumb impressions of the plaintiff on it and also on some other R. S. A. No. 3360 of 2007 2 blank and typed papers. Signatures of plaintiff's husband were also obtained thereon. On the same day, two post-dated cheques – one dated 30.10.1995 for Rs.10,43,406/- and other dated 30.12.1995 for Rs.46,800/- were also given to the plaintiff. Balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. Photocopy of the agreement was also given to the plaintiff. Subsequently, on perusal of copy of the agreement, it was learnt that it was recited in the agreement that the plaintiff had received Rs.12,55,187/- at her residence and Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of agreement, although no such payment was made. The plaintiff, therefore, filed suit on 03.08.1995 challenging the said agreement. However, during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff learnt that General Power of Attorney on behalf of the plaintiff had been got registered in favour of defendant no.1 and registered lease deed of the suit land for 90 years had also been got prepared in favour of defendant no.2 on 18.07.1995 itself. The plaintiff thereafter got the Power of Attorney cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 21.09.1995. However, defendant no.1, purporting to act as General Attorney of the plaintiff, sold the suit land to defendants no.3 to 7 vide five registered sale deeds dated 22.08.1995. The plaintiff in the instant suit challenged the Power of Attorney, the lease deed and the five sale deeds. The plaintiff, in the alternative, also sought possession of the suit land, although the plaintiff claimed to continue in cultivating possession of the suit land. The plaintiff, in the alternative, also sought R. S. A. No. 3360 of 2007 3 recovery of the balance amount of Rs.13,06,587.75 paise. Defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte in the trial court. Defendants no.2 to 7 failed to file written statement in spite of numerous opportunities and therefore, their defence was struck off. Defendant no.8 contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendant no.8 inter alia pleaded that on coming to know that plaintiff intended to sell her land, he had contacted her to seek deposit of the amount in the bank, in which defendant no.8 was working. Defendant no.8 denied other allegations of the plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant no.8 was also proceeded ex-parte. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2006, partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.46,800/- against defendant no.2. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the plaintiff admittedly encashed cheque dated 30.10.1995 for Rs.10,43,406/-, whereas cheque dated 30.12.1995 for Rs.46,800/- was dishonoured. Consequently, the trial court passed decree for recovery of the said cheque amount. The plaintiff admitted to have executed the agreement to sell R. S. A. No. 3360 of 2007 4 the suit land and was also having copy thereof. However, the plaintiff did not even prove the said agreement in evidence to depict that she had not received the amount of Rs.12,55,187/- and Rs.1,00,000/-, as recited in the said agreement. On the other hand, the plaintiff has admitted her thumb impressions on the agreement, General Power of Attorney and lease deed, which are registered documents. The plaintiff has examined many witnesses, but the star witness is plaintiff's own husband and Attorney holder. Except his testimony, there is practically no other evidence to prove that any fraud was played with the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself has not stepped into the witness-box. On the other hand, the agreement to sell and General Power of Attorney were thumb marked by the plaintiff and signed by plaintiff's husband as well. General Power of Attorney and lease deed are registered documents. Consequently, self-serving statement of plaintiff's husband is not sufficient to hold that the said documents were result of fraud. In addition to the aforesaid, it has to be noticed with significance that the plaintiff-appellant, even after coming to know of the alleged fraud, encashed cheque dated 30.10.1995 for Rs.10,43,406/-. There is no explanation for the same. It is thus manifest that the plaintiff had entered into agreement to sell and had executed Power of Attorney and had received the entire sale consideration, as recited in the agreement including the amount payable under the impugned cheques. R. S. A. No. 3360 of 2007 5 There is concurrent finding of fact against the plaintiff- appellant on proper appreciation of evidence. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner, so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The suit appears to be result of dishonest intention of the plaintiff-appellant. The appeal is completely devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. June 30, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE