Case: Rattan Singh &amp; Ors Vs. Nirmal Gill &amp; Ors. etc

has come to the conclusion that the disputed documents were executed by Harcharan Kaur (Joginder Kaur [sic]) on dated 29.06.1990, 28.06.1990, 03.07.1990, then in those circumstances, if any fraud etc. has been played upon by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was required to file the suit within the period of three years. So apparently the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Therefore, the said issues stand decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. (emphasis supplied) 75. The first appellate Court in its judgment confirmed the findings of the trial Court that the suits were barred by limitation. While doing so, the first appellate Court had also proceeded on the wrong premise that the family function was held in December, 2001. Finally, the first appellate Court held that since the 1990 GPA had been proved to have been executed by plaintiff, the question of acquiring knowledge in the family function loses significance. 76. In contrast, the High Court had noted that the factum of the family function and plaintiffs presence thereat was admitted by defendant No. 4. The High Court then went on to reverse the findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court whilst opining the testimony of Rustam Singh cements the case of the plaintiff and it was apparent that the plaintiff had no reason to suspect her brothers at an earlier point of time and she was not even aware of the acts of the defendants. The said facts came to light only after the plaintiff conducted inquiries. The relevant portion of the High Courts judgment is set out hereunder: ..... … Learned courts below have further erred in holding that the suits are barred by limitation. The plaintiffs case is that she came to know about the fraud being perpetuated by her own step brothers and sister-in-law after she settled in Punjab, subsequent to the retirement of her husband and consequent increased frequency of her interaction with her relatives. Marriage of her paternal uncles son (Tayas son) is admitted by DW 6 Rattan Singh. It is further admitted that the plaintiff was present at the said wedding. Testimony of Rustam Singh cements the case of the plaintiff. ... (emphasis supplied) 77. Before analysing the correctness of the decisions arrived at, let us see the settled legal position as to effect of fraud on limitation as prescribed in Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963(for short, the 1963 Act). The said provision reads as under: 17.– Effect of fraud or mistake.- (1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,— (a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production ....... (emphasis supplied) 78. Therefore, for invoking Section 17 of the 1963 Act, two ingredients have to be pleaded and duly proved. One is existence of a fraud and the other is discovery of such fraud. In the present case, since the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of fraud, there is no occasion for its discovery. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be extended the benefit under the said provision. 79. It must be noted that the trial Court was in error to hold that the person who has disclosed the information was not examined by the plaintiff, when it had come on record through the testimony of Kultar Singh (DW2), that Rustam Singh expired before the suits came up for trial. If so, the finding of the High Court that the testimony of Rustam Singh strengthened the case of plaintiff is ex-facie erroneous and manifestly wrong. In as much as, the said person was never examined before the Court in these proceedings. Further, the trial Court and the first appellate Court had erroneously assumed the date of function in December, 2001 in place of February, 2001. However, that will have no bearing on the finding on the factum of non-existence of fraud. The concurring findings recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court - that the documents were executed by the plaintiff - belies and demolishes the case of the plaintiff, as to having acquired knowledge of alleged fraud in 2001. Therefore, the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court in that regard. CONCLUSION 80. It is settled that the standard of proof required in a civil dispute is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. In the present cases, though the discrepancies in the 1990 GPA are bound to create some doubt, however, in absence of any tangible evidence produced by the plaintiff to support the plea of fraud, it does not take the matter further. Rather, in this case the testimony of the attesting witness, scribe and other independent witnesses plainly support the case of the defendants. That evidence dispels the doubt if any; and tilt the balance in favour of the defendants. 81. Suffice it to observe that since the plaintiff could not establish the existence of fraud, it must follow that the suits are ex-facie barred by limitation. 82. As to the title of the subsequent purchasers, since the 1990 GPA had been proved, there is no reason to doubt their bonafides.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]25. The fraud in the present lis is allegedly committed in respect of the 1990 GPA executed on 28.06.1990 and registered on 29.06.1990, and the Sale deeds executed and registered on 29.06.1990 and on 03.07.1990 respectively. We may examine the findings in respect of these documents separately.32. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the Courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by this Court in Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 353 .  The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below:27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.In view thereof, in the present cases, the initial onus was on the plaintiff, who had challenged the stated registered document.34. As the execution of the 1990 GPA and the sale deeds in the present cases is denied by the plaintiff, it became necessary for the plaintiff to examine the attesting witnesses of the disputed documents to establish her allegation about its non-execution. For, the documents had been registered on 29.06.1990 and came to be attested by Teja Singh Lamberdar and Gurcharan Singh. However, both the attesting witnesses were not examined. Indeed, Teja Singh had since died but there is nothing on record regarding availability of Gurcharan Singh. Thus, we must now advert to Section 69 of the 1872 Act which provides for proof when no attesting witness is found. The same is extracted below:69.- Proof where no attesting witness found.- If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the hand writing of that person.. The fact that the subject documents were executed by plaintiff and attested by Teja Singh has been established from record in the shape of evidence of PW4 as well as defendant No.4. The signatures of Teja Singh were identified by DW2, who deposed that he was conversant with Urdu language and could identify the signature of Teja Singh, which was in Urdu language. Further, DW4 deposed that he used to pay land revenue to Teja Singh and received receipts from him. Moreover, the handwriting expert (DW7) had also compared the admitted signatures of Teja Singh with those on the disputed documents and opined that it was signed by him, while the expert produced by the plaintiff as PW10 had not examined the admitted signatures of Teja Singh. Therefore, the signatures of Teja Singh stood proved as per the opinion of expert (DW7) and stood corroborated by DW2 and DW4, independent witnesses.37. Here, the evidence of plaintiffs witness-PW4 comes to aid of the defendants as the same unveils that the stated documents were prepared on the basis of instructions of the plaintiff and had been duly executed by her in the presence of the attesting witnesses.38. At this stage, it may be noted that the trial Court and the first appellate Court had relied upon the evidence of PW4. The High Court, however, proceeded on surmises and conjectures and took a view which is perverse and tenuous. In that, the ground on which the High Court rejected the evidence of PW4 is that he was known to the defendant No. 4 since his school days. We do not find it to be a correct approach to disregard the credible testimony of the witness examined by the plaintiff herself (without declaring him as a hostile witness) and especially when it had come on record that the said scribe is a regular deed writer at the Tehsil complex, Dasuya. Notably, PW4 had not been declared hostile at the instance of the plaintiff and as such, this part of his testimony would be staring at the plaintiff.40. The trial Court had justly placed the initial burden of proof upon the plaintiff as it was her case that the subject documents were forged or product of fraud and moreso because the documents bore her signature. The first appellate Court did not elaborate on that aspect. Even assuming that the burden had shifted upon the defendants, the witness identifying signatures of the dead attesting witness was examined by the defendants. Therefore, the documents stood proved and the burden was duly discharged by the defendants.The requirement regarding shifting of burden onto the defendants had been succinctly discussed in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558 ,  wherein this Court had held that for shifting the burden of proof, it would require more than merely pleading that the relationship is a fiduciary one and it must be proved by producing tangible evidence. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as thus:8. The initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff in view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under:101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.9. In terms of the said provision, the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it. The said rule may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto. The learned trial court and the High Court proceeded on the basis that the defendant was in a dominating position and there had been a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The appellant in his written statement denied and disputed the said averments made in the plaint.10. Pleading is not evidence, far less proof. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. The defendant- appellant having not admitted or acknowledged the fiduciary relationship between the parties, indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue. The suit will fail if both the parties do not adduce any evidence, in view of Section 102 of the Evidence Act. Thus, ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side.11. The fact that the defendant was in a dominant position must, thus, be proved by the plaintiff at the first instance.14. But before such a finding is arrived at, the averments as regards alleged fiduciary relationship must be established before a presumption of undue influence against a person in position of active confidence is drawn. The factum of active confidence should also be established.15. Section 111 of the Evidence Act will apply when the bona fides of a transaction is in question but not when the real nature thereof is in question. The words active confidence indicate that the relationship between the parties must be such that one is bound to protect the interests of the other.16. Thus, point for determination of binding interests or which are the cases which come within the rule of active confidence would vary from case to case. If the plaintiff fails to prove the existence of the fiduciary relationship or the position of active confidence held by the defendant-appellant, the burden would lie on him as he had alleged fraud. The trial court and the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, cannot be said to be correct in holding that without anything further, the burden of proof would be on the defendant.It is an admitted position that the plaintiff and defendants always had cordial relationship and the plaintiff was on visiting terms. Further, the fact that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were cultivating the joint lands is also not disputed. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were cultivating the lands along with their father Harbans Singh and continued to do so even after his death. The principle underlying the reported decision must come to the aid of defendants as the plaintiff had failed to prove the fact of misuse of trust by the defendants as such.43. Further, the plaintiff attempted to project the 1990 GPA as a doubtful document stating that the same had discrepancies with respect to the address and the alteration of the date of execution. In absence of the attesting witness and in view of the evidence of PW4 scribe, it was for the plaintiff to get PW4 declared hostile and cross examine him in order to prove that he had deposed falsely, which the plaintiff had failed to do.However, the same is of no avail to the plaintiff as the 1990 GPA was in respect of all her land holdings, whereas the sale was made only in respect of land situate at Kalyanpur village.45. The other reason weighed with the High Court that 1990 GPA was allegedly executed by the plaintiff as she being a woman is also of no consequence as the words being a lady were preceded by I am old and weak. Thus, the primary reason for executing the 1990 GPA was that the plaintiff was not residing in Punjab at the relevant point of time and that she was old and weak, and thus unable to look after her property situate at Punjab. The stress laid upon the fact that a woman was appointed in her place is, therefore, a matter of surmises and conjectures.46. Suffice it to observe that the contention that the registration of the 1990 GPA as well as the sale deeds, had been effected by impersonating the plaintiff has not been proved. No credible and tangible evidence has been led in that regard. It is merely a bald plea set up by the plaintiff.47. The plaintiffs denial of being acquainted with the attesting witnesses, is, also a ruse and not genuine. For, one of the attesting witnesses Teja Singh was a lamberdar of the village. A lamberdars job is to collect revenue in respect of the lands and issue receipts and as a practice, the lamberdar is called for attesting documents. Thus, when the plaintiff admittedly used to visit village frequently, her denial in knowing Teja Singh is far- fetched. This is what two Courts had opined and being a possible view, no interference by the High Court was warranted in that regard. That is beyond the scope of second appeal, as held by this Court in Satya Gupta (Smt.) alias Madhu Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar (1998) 6 SCC 423 .  The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted hereunder:16. At the outset, we would like to point out that the findings on facts by the lower appellate court as a final court of facts, are based on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be treated as perverse or based on no evidence. That being the position, we are of the view that the High Court, after reappreciating the evidence and without finding that the conclusions reached by the lower appellate court were not based on the evidence, reversed the conclusions on facts on the ground that the view taken by it was also a possible view on the facts. The High Court, it is well settled, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot reverse the findings of the lower appellate court on facts merely on the ground that on the facts found by the lower appellate court another view wasd in respect of sale deed dated 03.07.199053. Before analysing the evidence of DW3, it may be noted that since the sale deed requires attestation by two witnesses, as discussed above, the same has to be proved as per procedure laid down under Section 68 of the 1872 Act.54. The sale deed of 03.07.1990 had been attested by Teja Singh Lamberdar and Anoop Singh (DW3). The attesting witness (DW3) was examined and he had deposed that the said sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in his presence, as well as in presence of Teja Singh and defendant No. 3. He had denied presence of any other person. He stated that the sale consideration was paid at home directly and not in his presence. Indeed, he had failed to identify plaintiff in photographs.55. We may here refer to a decision of this Court in Damodar v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 12 SCC 336 ,  wherein it has been held that a hypersensitive approach ought not be taken in cases where there has been a delay in recording evidence. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below:7. In order to consider the correctness of conclusions arrived at by the two courts below, it has to be seen whether evidence of PW 15 has been rightly accepted to be truthful and reliable. So far as PW 15 is concerned, it has to be noted that at the time of occurrence he was about 13 years of age and was a student. The incident is of October 1990. PW 15 was examined in August 1997 i.e. nearly after seven years. It cannot be lost sight of that long passage of time sometimes erases the memory and minute details are lost sight of. In this background, it has been stated that if a case is proved perfectly it is argued that it is artificial. If a case has some flaws inevitably because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. While, therefore, assessing the evidence one has to keep realities in view and not adopt a hypersensitive approach. The so-called discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants like the vehicle from which the witness saw the approaching bus or with which part of the offending vehicle the cycle was hit are too trifle to affect the credibility of PW 15s evidence. Filtering out these minor discrepancies, cream of the evidence remains on which the credibility of the evidence lies. That being so, the conclusions arrived at by the two courts below on evaluation of evidence do not need any interference.In the present cases, the disputed documents were executed in the year 1990 and the evidence of DW3 was recorded in the year 2007, after a passage of 17 long years. Thus, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the High Court erroneously doubted the evidence of DW3 merely because he could not identify photographs of plaintiff and because the defendant No. 4 and DW3 did not mention each others presence at the time of execution.56. Be that as it may, with reference to the said sale deed, the defendant No. 4 deposed that he was present at the time of execution of the sale deed on 03.07.1990 which was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No. 3 and himself. He stated that Teja Singh and Gurcharan Singh were also present.58. The disputed sale deed dated 03.07.1990 was signed by plaintiff as vendor and defendant No. 3 as vendee and in the presence of DW3 and the other attesting witness Teja Singh. DW3 as an attesting witness had seen both plaintiff and defendant No. 3 signing the deed and he then attested the sale deed. The High Court also failed to note that the other attesting witness being dead and his signature having been identified by DW2 and DW4, and with the testimony of PW4 scribe, the evidence of the DW3 witness stood corroborated and therefore, the same could not be disregarded.60. It is noteworthy that defendant No. 4 had not signed the sale deed despite being a vendee. In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 ,  it has been held that signature of the vendee is not mandatory in a sale deed. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:18. In any agreement of sale, the terms are always negotiated and thereafter reduced in the form of an agreement of sale and signed by both parties or the vendor alone (unless it is by a series of offers and counter-offers by letters or other modes of recognised communication). In India, an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and delivered to the purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can be specifically enforced by the purchaser. There is, however, no practice of purchaser alone signing an agreement of sale.19. The defendant next contended that the agreement of sale in this case (Ext. 2) was clearly in a form which required signatures of both the vendor and purchaser. It is pointed out that the agreement begins as: Agreement for sale between Kanika Bose and Parmatma Devi and not an Agreement of sale executed by Kanika Bose in favour of Parmatma Devi. Our attention is also drawn to the testimonium clause (the provision at the end of the instrument stating when and by whom it was signed) of the agreement, which reads thus:In witnesses whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto set and subscribed their respective hands and seals on these presents.It is therefore contended that the agreement specifically contemplated execution by both parties; and as it was not so executed, it was incomplete and unenforceable.20. We have carefully examined the agreement (Ext. 2), a photocopy of which is produced. The testimonium portion in the agreement is in an archaic form which has lost its meaning. Parties no longer subscribe their respective hands and seals. It is true that the format obviously contemplates signature by both parties. But it is clear that the intention of the parties was that it should be complete on signature by only the vendor. This is evident from the fact that the document is signed by the vendor and duly witnessed by four witnesses and was delivered to the purchaser. Apart from a separate endorsement made on the date of the agreement itself (7-9-1979) by the vendor acknowledging the receipt of Rs 2001 as advance, it also contains a second endorsement (which is also duly witnessed) made on 10-10-1979 by the vendor, acknowledging the receipt of a further sum of Rs 2000 and confirming that the total earnest money received was Rs 4001. This shows that the purchaser accepted and acted in terms of the agreement which was signed, witnessed and delivered to her as a complete instrument and that she then obtained an endorsement thereon by the vendor, in regard to second payment. If the agreement was not complete, the vendor would not have received a further amount and endorsed an acknowledgment thereon on 10-10-1979.21. Apart from the above, the evidence of the witnesses also shows that there was a concluded contract. Therefore, even though the draftsman who prepared the agreement might have used a format intended for execution by both vendor and purchaser, the manner in which the parties had proceeded, clearly demonstrated that it was intended to be executed only by the vendor alone.22. Thus we hold that the agreement of sale (Ext. 2) signed only by the vendor was valid and enforceable by the purchaser.61. Since the defendant No. 4 has not signed the sale deed as a vendee, his evidence cannot be discarded. In any case, the weight of evidence of DW3 remains unassailable. Therefore, the testimony of DW3 satisfies the requirements of the conditions required for a valid attestation.62. The plaintiff also asserted that she had not received the consideration in relation to the stated transactions and that the defendants had no means to pay the consideration. It has come on record that the defendants had mortgaged the joint lands several times as they were in need of money. Further, the defendant No. 4 after admitting to have mortgaged the land had said that he used that money to install tubewells and buy tractors. The said fact does not conclusively prove that they did not possess funds as the said loans were obtained to make investments on the joint lands and not on the personal property of the defendant No. 4. Further, the defendant No. 4 had deposed that the sale consideration was paid from the sale proceeds received by selling the land of their mother in the village Ashrafpur. Since the attesting witness had proved the execution of the sale deeds, the primary onus upon the plaintiff had not shifted unto the defendants. Further, the plaintiff was obliged to rebut the positive evidence produced by the defendants regarding payment of consideration amount to the plaintiff; but also ought to have independently proved her case of non-receipt of the consideration amount.63. A priori, we hold that the diverse grounds urged by the plaintiff in disputing the 1990 GPA and the sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 are, as observed hitherto, unsubstantiated and untenable.64. The plaintiff got her admitted signatures compared with the signatures on the disputed documents by a handwriting expert, Jassy Anand (PW10) who had come to a conclusion that the disputed signatures were a result of copied forgery. On the contrary, the defendants had also got the same document examined by their expert, Arvind Sood (DW7), who had determined the disputed signatures to have been signed by plaintiff herself.65. The trial Court and the first appellate Court had not considered the contrary opinions of the experts and chose to form their opinion based on other evidence that has come on record. In our opinion, the expert evidence produced by the plaintiff in reference to the signature of the plaintiff is of no avail, in view of divergent opinions. The ground that the documents were a result of copied forgery cannot be substantiated only on the basis of the opinion of expert (PW10). Even otherwise, the expert opinions are not a binding piece of evidence and have to be corroborated with other pieces of evidence. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff failed to prove that her signatures on the subject documents are forged.1963 GPA not challenged66. Further, the 1963 GPA is claimed to have been discovered during the enquiries made by the plaintiff subsequent to attaining knowledge of the fraud. However, the said GPA was never challenged by the plaintiff. The reason cited for not challenging the said GPA is that the document being a 30-year old document could not be challenged.67. The trial Court had observed that the plaintiff in her cross examination, gave evasive replies when confronted with the 1963 GPA, which bears her signature. She had also admitted that she was taken to Tehsil office in 1963 after her fathers death. Therefore, it could be safely accepted that the plaintiff had executed the 1963 GPA and further she had knowledge of the sanction of mutation in pursuance of that GPA. Paragraph 45 of the judgment of the trial Court is extracted below:45. Further, another fact which reveals that plaintiff was having knowledge regarding sanctioning of mutation of inheritance, is that, prior to sanctioning of mutation of inheritance of deceased Harbans Singh, she executed power of attorney along with other defendants dated 08.10.1963 Ex. D19 in favour of Gurdial Singh regarding the management of land and she admitted this thing in her cross-examination that after the death of Harbans Singh, she was taken to Tehsil Office and when she was shown that power of attorney which bears her signatures on different points, she gave evasive reply.. The first appellate Court and the High Court had not made any observation in that regard.71. The presumption in favour of a 30-year old document is, therefore, a rebuttable presumption. Nothing prevented the plaintiff to rebut the presumption by leading appropriate evidence in order to disprove the same. Since the plaintiff failed to do so, the said document would be binding on the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the parties had acted upon the terms of the said document without any demur since 1963 and it was, therefore, not open to resile therefrom at this distance of time. Hence, the trial Court was right in holding the 1963 GPA, to be a genuine document.78. Therefore, for invoking Section 17 of the 1963 Act, two ingredients have to be pleaded and duly proved. One is existence of a fraud and the other is discovery of such fraud. In the present case, since the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of fraud, there is no occasion for its discovery. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be extended the benefit under the said provision.79. It must be noted that the trial Court was in error to hold that the person who has disclosed the information was not examined by the plaintiff, when it had come on record through the testimony of Kultar Singh (DW2), that Rustam Singh expired before the suits came up for trial. If so, the finding of the High Court that the testimony of Rustam Singh strengthened the case of plaintiff is ex-facie erroneous and manifestly wrong. In as much as, the said person was never examined before the Court in these proceedings. Further, the trial Court and the first appellate Court had erroneously assumed the date of function in December, 2001 in place of February, 2001. However, that will have no bearing on the finding on the factum of non-existence of fraud. The concurring findings recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court - that the documents were executed by the plaintiff - belies and demolishes the case of the plaintiff, as to having acquired knowledge of alleged fraud in 2001. Therefore, the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court in that regard.80. It is settled that the standard of proof required in a civil dispute is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. In the present cases, though the discrepancies in the 1990 GPA are bound to create some doubt, however, in absence of any tangible evidence produced by the plaintiff to support the plea of fraud, it does not take the matter further. Rather, in this case the testimony of the attesting witness, scribe and other independent witnesses plainly support the case of the defendants. That evidence dispels the doubt if any; and tilt the balance in favour of the defendants.81. Suffice it to observe that since the plaintiff could not establish the existence of fraud, it must follow that the suits are ex-facie barred by limitation.82. As to the title of the subsequent purchasers, since the 1990 GPA had been proved, there is no reason to doubt their bonafides.