R.S.A. No. 2288 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2288 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.1.2009 Balbir Singh & another .......... Appellants Versus Janak Raj & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 30.9.2002 and 10.1.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 seeking declaration that plaintiff is owner/co-sharer and in possession of the suit land, has been decreed. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit that defendants No. 1 to 4 being owner of the property in dispute had transferred their ownership right in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by way of registered sale deed dated 20.12.1979 and mutation of sale was duly entered into the revenue record. The plaintiff was put in possession. Plaintiff also pleaded that subsequently the name of the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff was struck R.S.A. No. 2288 of 2007 (O&M) -2- off from the revenue record without assigning any reason. It is the case of the plaintiff that by taking advantage of the deletion, defendants No. 1 to 4 sold the property to defendants No. 5 & 6 i.e. appellants herein, by way of registered sale deed dated 21.4.1998. It is further the case of the plaintiff- respondent that in view of the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants they are trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent. Written statement was filed separately by defendants No. 1 to 4 and defendants No. 5 & 6. Respondent-defendants No. 1 to 4 took the stand that sale deed dated 21.2.1979 is outcome of misrepresentation and, therefore, has no legal sanctity. Defendants No. 5 & 6 took a plea that they were bona fide purchaser for consideration and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that defendants No. 1 to 4 have failed to prove the fraud. One of the circumstances taken into consideration to come to this conclusion was that defendants No. 1 to 4 were party and had now chosen to challenge the sale deed. It is settled law that a fraud is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below previous sale deed was not outcome of fraud cannot be challenged in the regular second appeal. It is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence. Once it is held that the plaintiff-respondent had become owner by way of registered sale deed dated 20.12.1979, the subsequent sale deed in favour of defendants No. 5 & 6 did not confer any title on them. The remedy, if any, R.S.A. No. 2288 of 2007 (O&M) -3- with the appellants was to seek their remedy against the defendants No. 1 to 4. It may be noticed that defendants No. 1 to 4 chose not to challenge the findings recorded against them by the learned trial Court while rejecting plea of fraud. In view of what has been observed above, this appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. 21.1.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE