R.S.A.No.3358 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3358 of 2005 Date of Decision : 08.10.2005 Hem Raj ...Appellant Versus Rajpal and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby challenge to the sale deed dated 10.1.1991 in respect of land measuring 16 Kanals 8 Marlas was dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said sale deed is result of fraud and misrepresentation and that he never sold his land in favour of defendant No.3 on 18.12.1990. As per the facts on record, the plaintiff executed an agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.1 on 18.12.1990. The plaintiff also executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.4 on the aforesaid date and also executed a lease deed in favour of defendant No.3 for a period of 99 years. On the basis of power of attorney so executed, the sale deed was executed on 10.1.1991. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact that all the documents are proved to be executed by the plaintiff-appellant R.S.A.No.3358 of 2005 2 voluntarily and after understanding the contents thereof. It has been further found that though the plaintiff has challenged the sale deed on the ground of fraud, but neither element of fraud nor any other influence has been proved by the appellant. It has been further found that the appellant while appearing as PW-1 has not stated that the contents of the impugned documents were not read over to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to argue that no person will purchased the land, when the same is leased for 99 years. As a matter of fact, all the defendants are members of the same family, as defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of Mera Ram, whereas defendant No.1 is grand son of Mera Ram. It appears that the lease deed was got executed from the appellant so as to avoid the right of preemption, which may be exercised by the other co-sharers. The findings of fact in respect of execution of the documents sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence alone. It could not be pointed that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 08.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE