Ram Ratti v. Pawan & Another S

L.N MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

Plaintiff-Ram Ratti having been non-suited by both the Courts below has filed this second appeal.

In the suit, plaintiff-appellant has challenged sale deed dated 03.06.1997 and consequent mutation No. 656 dated 26.08.1997 regarding plaintiff's share in the land described in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the aforesaid sale deed was obtained from her by fraud by Karan Singh father of defendants/respondents. Said Karan Singh is husband of plaintiff's sister.

Defendants defended the sale deed to be legal and valid, having been executed by the plaintiff voluntarily.

Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff who has, therefore, filed this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

Sale deed in question was executed by the plaintiff herself. She has admitted her thumb impressions thereon. Her photograph also appears on the sale deed. It is also a registered document. The plaintiff has challenged the same on the ground of fraud. Even in civil cases, fraud has to be proved almost beyond reasonable doubt just like a criminal charge. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the alleged fraud in execution of the impugned sale deed. Her own statement has been found to be contradictory and discrepant and even belied by the documentary evidence.

On the other hand, defendants have led cogent evidence to prove due execution of the impugned sale deed by the plaintiff. Defendants have inter alia examined scribe as well as an attesting witness of the sale deed, besides testimony of Karan Singh father of the defendants.

Both the Courts below after analyzing the evidence and by assigning detailed reasons, have come to concurrent finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the impugned sale deed was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation etc. or that the sale deed is null and void. Consequently the plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by the Courts below. Aforesaid finding of the Courts below is justified by the evidence on record and is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. Consequently there is no ground to interfere with said finding of the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is completely devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.