IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2085 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 7, 2011. Mehma Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Hazura Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 11.02.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.2085 of 2011 Briefly stated, parties are real brothers. Earlier suit regarding property in dispute was filed by brother of present appellant-plaintiff, Hazura Singh against him and others i.e. suit no.129/1999. In the said suit compromise was effected between the parties being brothers and in view of compromise, decree Ex.D2 was passed on the basis of the statements of the parties recorded by the Court. Statement of present appellant-plaintiff was also recorded in the Court and he signed the same. Compromise, Ex.D3 was also placed on record. Compromise also bears signatures of present appellant-plaintiff. He has filed the present suit on the plea that fraud has been committed upon him and that, in fact, he had not entered into the compromise nor engaged any counsel and that he has not signed the compromise and hence, he has prayed for setting aside the decree passed against him by way of compromise. Suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. Law is well settled that plea of fraud has to be specifically pleaded and proved. In this case appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove that his signatures are not there on the statement suffered by him in the court admitting the factum of compromise. Learned trial Court has observed that though compromise placed on record was a photostat copy and however, the same contains original signatures of appellant-plaintiff. He did not get his alleged signatures compared by some handwriting and finger print expert in order to show that his statement in the court and the compromise do not contain his signatures. In view of these facts, both the courts have not placed reliance upon the self serving statement of appellant-plaintiff. 2 RSA No.2085 of 2011 Hence, in view of aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the 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 misappreciation 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 ) September 7, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3