Regular Second Appeal No.2114 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2114 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Order: 20.10.2009 Shri Ram ....Appellant Versus Ram Chander and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. S.S.Khurana,Advocate for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.No.6276-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.2114 of 2009 The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 05.04.2008 and 04.11.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari and the Additional District Judge, Rewari, dismissing his suit and his appeal. The appellant filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 22.08.1979 is null and void. The appellant pleaded that as he was serving in the Indian Army, he requested his brothers to purchase the land on his behalf. Instead his brothers-the respondents, got the sale deed executed in their joint names reflecting them as co-owners to the extent of 2/3rd share. The respondents controverted these allegations by pleading that the plea of fraud is incorrect and even otherwise sale deed executed on 22.08.1979 is duly reflected in the revenue record since then. Regular Second Appeal No.2114 of 2009 (O&M) -2- After considering the pleadings,the evidence adduced, and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant has failed to establish his plea of fraud. In addition, the trial court held that the suit was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 04.11.2008, the Additional District Judge, Rewari, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant's-vendor had passed away, the trial court could not have drawn an adverse inference for failure to produce the vendor. It is further argued that as the appellant and his witnesses were not cross-examined on their deposition relating to fraud, their evidence with respect to fraud stands admitted and, therefore, the courts below have committed an error in holding that the allegation of fraud has not been proved. It is further argued that the appellant came to know of the fraud in the year 2001 when he was served with a notice for partition of the land and, therefore, the suit is within time. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and considered the substantial questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant and express my inability to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The sale deed under challenge was admittedly executed on 22.08.1979. The revenue record, consistently records the parties as owners in possession of 1/3rd share each. The appellant filed a suit in the year 2001 raising a plea of fraud by alleging that he had asked the respondents to get the sale deed executed in his favour as he was serving in the army. The respondents,however, played a fraud and got their names included in the sale deed and the revenue record. Both the trial court as also the first appellate court have held that the appellant has failed to adduce any satisfactory evidence in support of this plea. The statements of Regular Second Appeal No.2114 of 2009 (O&M) -3- the appellant's witnesses, were rightly held to be hearsay evidence as these witnesses were not privy to the execution of the sale deed. The arguments that the appellant's witnesses have not been cross-examined on the question of fraud is belied by their cross examination. The adverse inference drawn by the courts below for failure to produce the vendor who had passed away is an error that would make no difference to the final outcome of the case as the appellant has failed to prove the plea of fraud. In the absence of any evidence to draw an inference of fraud, the courts below rightly dismissed the suit and the appeal. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error and as no question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. October 20, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE