Regular Second Appeal No. 171 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 171 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 03, 2009 Smt. Niranjan Kaur ......... Appellant versus Smt. Gurdarshan Kaur and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents HEMANT GUPTA, J. Defendant No.4 Naranjan Kaur d/o Ranbir Singh is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby her counter claim challenging the sale deed dated 9.1.1995 in favour of Smt. Parkash Kaur in respect of land measuring 7 Kanals 4 Marlas, was dismissed. The parties are legal heirs of deceased Ranbir Singh who died on 1.6.1987 leaving behind two sons, namely, Mohinder Singh and Hardial Singh, and three daughters, namely, Agya Rani, Iqbal Kaur and Naranjan Kaur. Legal representatives of Hardial Singh, Agya Rani and Iqbal Kaur filed the present suit. In the previous proceedings initiated by the sons of Hardial Singh against all other legal heirs of Ranbir Singh, it was held that the estate of Ranbir Singh will be inherited by way of natural succession and consequently Naranjan Kaur purportedly got 7 Kanals 4 Marlas of land. Regular Second Appeal No. 171 of 2007 [2] The previous proceedings culminated into judgment dated 21.12.1994, Exhibit D-4. Smt. Parkash Kaur relied upon the said judgment while filing the present suit but since a counter claim was filed challenging the sale deed dated 9.1.1995 in her favour by Naranjan Kaur, she has withdrawn her suit. It is the counter claim filed by defendant No.4 which is adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court challenging the execution of the sale deed on 9.1.1995 which has been dismissed by the Courts below. The grievance of the appellant is that the sale deed is without consideration and that it is an act of fraud and misrepresentation. The learned trial Court has found that PW4 Daljit Singh, an attesting witness, has deposed that the sale deed dated 9.1.1995 was scribed by the deed writer and it was read over to the parties who appended their signatures in the presence of each other and in the presence of other attesting witness Arunesh Shakar. An amount of Rs.81,000/- was stated to be given to Naranjan Kaur at home prior to the execution of the sale deed scribed by Rajwinder Singh PW2. The parties and the witnesses appeared before the Tehsildar for registration of the sale deed which was also read over there by the Tehsildar as well. Smt. Parkash Kaur appeared as PW6 and relied upon sale deed dated 9.1.1995 in her favour. Naranjan Kaur appeared as DW1 and deposed that she never alienated the land of her share to Smt. Parkash Kaur. She came to Ludhiana on 3.1.1995 where her sisters Iqbal Kaur and Agya Kaur were residing. She was confined by Smt.Parkash Kaur, Mohinder Singh and others and procured her signatures on blank papers without payment. She denied having appeared before the Tehsildar for execution of the sale deed. The property in dispute was alleged to be costing Rs.50000/- per Marla. Regular Second Appeal No. 171 of 2007 [3] The learned trial Court found that scribe Rajwinder Singh PW2 and attesting witness Daljit Singh PW4 deposed that sale consideration was already received by Naranjan Kaur who was in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of Smt. Parkash Kaur. It has been found that Naranjan Kaur signed the documents in normal course and that she has failed to prove that her signatures were obtained by force. With the said reasoning, the learned trial Court dismissed the counter claim. In appeal, it was found that the appellant has not examined her husband who allegedly rescued the appellant from Ludhiana nor the appellant has got any FIR registered nor filed any complaint against Smt. Parkash Kaur and the witnesses. It has also been found that Naranjan Kaur has received the amount of Rs.85,000/- in lieu of her share in the land of Ranbir Singh and executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Parkash Kaur. In second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that sale deed is without any consideration and that the sale deed is the result of coercion and fraud. Both the learned Courts below have found that the sale consideration as recited in the sale deed was paid to the appellant at her residence. Such finding has been returned on the basis of statement of scribe and a attesting witnesses. The conduct of the appellant negate her plea that such sale deed was an act of coercion and fraud. As per case set up for counter claim that she was kept forcibly at Ludhiana and her signatures were obtained by coercion and she was rescued by her husband and soon thereafter she filed the present suit. The appellant has not examined her husband nor made any grievance in respect of her forcible detention at Ludhiana to any police or other authority. Such conduct is sufficient to infer that the story propounded by the appellant is not tenable. Regular Second Appeal No. 171 of 2007 [4] Both the learned Courts below have examined the entire evidence to return a concurrent finding of fact that the sale deed Exhibit P-3 dated 9.1.1995 cannot be said to be an act of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. Such finding cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or material irregularity which may give rise to any substantial question of law for determination by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. August 03, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE