(1) BOTH the Courts below have concurrently found that the sale deed Ex. P. 1 relied upon by the plaintiff- respondent do not suffer from fraud and the defendant appellant has failed to bring any evidence on record to that effect. On the contrary the defendant-appellant has not disputed his own signatures on the sale deed. He has also failed to substantiate the allegations of fraud in respect of the sale deed executed in 1959. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff- respondent in the year 1981. The defendant-appellant has failed to rebut the case of the plaintiff- respondent by showing that he was merely a tenant over the suit property. Both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff- respondent is owner of the suit property and was entitled to correction of the entries in the revenue record in his favour with regard to khasra no. 105/10. After hearing the learned counsel I am of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise which is sine qua non under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There are pure findings of fact rsa 4543 of 2003.
2. recorded by both the Courts below. Accordingly the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed (M. M. Kumar)7.
3. 2006 Judge okg
Comments