RSA No.5098 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5098 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 05.01.2011. Jasbir Kaur .....Appellant Versus Jaswant Singh and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.37-C of 2011 The application is allowed and translated copy of sale deed Ex.D-1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal. This is second appeal by Jasbir Kaur, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. It appears that suit was initially filed by Agyawati only. Later on, Jasbir Kaur present appellant was impleaded as plaintiff No.2. Agyawati died during the pendency of the suit and her name was deleted from the array of parties. Agyawati alleged in the suit that she is owner in possession of the suit house which was inherited by her from her husband Kundan Singh, who received the same from his brother Santa Singh by gift. She used to treat Mukhtiar Singh as her son. Mukhtiar Singh was residing with her. Marriages of daughters of Mukhtiar Singh were also performed in the suit house. Mukhtiar RSA No.5098 of 2010 (O & M) -2- Singh has also since died. Jasbir Kaur appellant is wife of Mukhtiar Singh. Agyawati was illiterate old lady. Defendant No.1-Jaswant Singh is son of brother of Agyawati. Defendant No.1 had been exerting pressure on Agyawati for sale of her land. She could not resist the said pressure and consequently, Jaswant Singh obtained thumb impressions of Agyawati on the pretext of effecting sale of land. However, both defendants Jaswant Singh and Jarnail Singh conspired to grab the suit property. They threatened to take forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiff alleging that they have some sale deed in their favour. Agyawati pleaded that she had not executed any sale deed of the suit property and the sale deed if any is result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. Accordingly, Agyawati sought declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit house. Injunction restraining defendants from interfering in her possession over the suit house was also claimed. Defendants admitted that Kundan Singh husband of Agyawati got the suit house by gift from his brother Santa Singh and on death of Kundan Singh, the suit house was inherited by Agyawati. It was, however, denied that Mukhtiar Singh or his wife Jasbir Kaur-appellant ever resided in the suit house. Mukhtiar Singh was residing at Ludhiana where he was murdered. Agyawati sold the suit house to defendant No.2-Jarnail Singh vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.1995. However, Agyawati was allowed to live in the house as licensee on her request. When the defendants asked her to vacate the suit house, she filed the instant suit. All other allegations of the plaintiff Agyawati were broadly denied. Various other pleas were also raised. RSA No.5098 of 2010 (O & M) -3- Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2007 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by Jasbir Kaur-plaintiff No.2 has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No.2-Jasbir Kaur has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. There is practically not even an iota of evidence in support of the plaint allegations. Agyawati was the only material witness, who could depose about the allegations made in the plaint, but unfortunately Agyawati expired during the pendency of the suit and could not appear as witness. However, the fact remains that there is not even an iota of evidence to prove the alleged fraud. On the contrary, the impugned sale deed is a registered sale deed. Registration of the sale deed attaches authenticity to its genuineness. Strong degree of evidence is required to displace the same. However, in the instant case, as already noticed hereinbefore, there is no evidence much less strong evidence to prove that the sale deed was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. It is also significant to notice that defendants have led whatever evidence was possible to prove the genuineness of the sale deed. Defendants have examined both attesting witnesses of the sale deed and also the deed writer, who scribed it. All of them have proved that the sale deed was duly executed by Agyawati after understanding and admitting the contents thereof. Learned counsel RSA No.5098 of 2010 (O & M) -4- for the appellant vehemently contended that payment of consideration for the sale deed is not proved. Much emphasis was laid on alleged discrepancies in the statements of witnesses of the defendants. However, the contention cannot be accepted. Onus to prove this contention was on the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs have practically not led any evidence to substantiate this contention. On the contrary, payment of part consideration by way of two cheques has been proved by defendants by examining bank official and by producing bank account statements of Agyawati and defendant No.2- Jarnail Singh. It is also mentioned in the sale deed that part payment was made through cheques. There is also recital in the sale deed about payment of entire consideration. Before the Sub-Registrar also, receipt of entire sale consideration was admitted by Agyawati at the time of registration of the sale deed. Consequently payment of sale consideration stands proved. Some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses of the defendants cannot be attached undue significance because the witnesses were examined after a long period. Lower appellate Court has observed that sale deed is of the year 1995 whereas one witness of the sale deed was examined in the year 2006 i.e after 11 years. After lapse of such long period, the witnesses could not be expected to remember minute details. Both the Courts below have analyzed the evidence led by the parties and have come to concurrent finding against the plaintiffs. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. Evidence is not required to be appreciated for the third time in second appeal RSA No.5098 of 2010 (O & M) -5- unless there has been gross misreading or misappreciation of evidence by the Courts below. In this case, there has been no misreading or misappreciation of evidence by the lower Courts. On the contrary, all contentions as now sought to be raised have been discussed in detail by the Courts below. Consequently, concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is thus found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 05.01.2011. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE