IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2826 of 2010. Date of Decision: December 15, 2011. Smt. Chander Kala ...... APPELLANT. Versus Roshan Lal. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.P. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2009 passed by learned District Judge Gurgaon dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon dismissing the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and have gone through the whole record including both the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. Briefly stated, present appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to the effect that release deed dated 12.01.2006 and mutation RSA No.2826 of 2010. No.2457 dated 18.02.2006 in respect of the land in dispute are forged and fabricated documents and are not binding upon her rights and the same are liable to be set aside and that she continues to be co-owner in joint possession of the property in dispute. Plea has been taken that on 12.01.2006 she along with respondent-defendant reached Gurgaon Tehsil premises, where defendant-respondent obtained her signature on blank papers and obtained her photographs on the plea that the photographs were necessary for the purpose of verification in partition proceedings. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant has taken the plea that release deed has been voluntarily executed by the present appellant-plaintiff. Plea has also been taken that a civil suit was also filed by sons of present appellant-plaintiff in which she (appellant-plaintiff) had made a statement that release deed was executed by her as her sons were not providing food and amenities of life and she was ousted from her house. She also moved a complaint in Police Station Badshahpur and in the said complaint as well she made the similar statement. She also filed a criminal complaint in the Court stating that release deed was executed without any pressure from any side. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by her was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Gurgaon. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that she could not appear in this case being old lady. Further contends that though she was party in the other suit filed by her sons, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that her sons were having no right to challenge the release deed during her life time. Further contents 2 RSA No.2826 of 2010. that there is no material difference in the stand of appellant-plaintiff taken in the earlier suit and in this suit. However, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. Admittedly, earlier suit was filed by sons of present appellant-plaintiff in which she was also a party. She made statement as DW1 by way of her affidavit Ex.DW1/1 that there were differences between her and her sons and the release deed was executed by her as she was not happy with her sons. She also admitted to have filed criminal complaint against her sons. She lodged a criminal complaint in the police and another complaint in the Court against her sons and in those proceedings also, she made statement against her sons. However, in the present case, she has taken a plea of fraud having been committed upon her by respondent who is her nephew. However, she has failed to prove the alleged fraud. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 15, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3