Poojan & Anr. v. Tilakdhari And 5 Others

The plaintiff-appellant filed Original Suit No.156 of 1989 seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1988 on the ground that the defendant had committed fraud with him. The plaint case was to the effect that the plaintiff-appellant was in need of money for installing a tube-well over his land and he met defendant in this regard. The defendant carried the plaintiff to the Registry office where Rs.2,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and when the Sub-Registrar asked a question as to whether the plaintiff had received said sum of money, the plaintiff answered in affirmative, however, later on, he came to know that fraud had been committed with him and, under the garb of executing document concerning loan, sale deed was got executed by the defendant.

The defendant contested the proceedings and termed to the sale deed and its execution strictly in accordance with law.

The trial court framed various issues and issue No.1 was framed as to whether on the basis of grounds contained in the plaint, the sale deed dated 29.11.1988 was liable to be cancelled. The trial court, after discussing the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the sale deed was validly executed. It was observed that the plaintiff did not even appear in the witness box and the remaining witnesses produced by him could not lead sufficient evidence to establish the plea of fraud.

The plaintiff filed civil appeal, which has also been dismissed. The appellate court has also discussed the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties and found the case of the plaintiff- appellant as without any substance.

Sri D.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, has vehemently argued that the main dispute in the present case was the plea of fraud but neither the trial court framed issue in this regard nor did the appellate court frame point for consideration qua it and, hence, both the judgments are liable to be set aside. He also submits that as regards non-appearance of the plaintiff as a witness, the reason behind the same was that the plaintiff was an illiterate, weak and old person and, therefore, he was accompanied by his son Ram Jatan in the Registry office and it was Ram Jatan who was produced as PW-1. He submits that the value of the commercial land in dispute was quite high at that time and, therefore, there was no occasion for executing a sale deed for a sum of Rs.2,000/- only.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, this Court finds that the issue No.1 framed by the trial court and points No.1, 2 and 3 framed by the lower appellate court covered the plea of fraud. Though word "fraud" was not written in the points and the issue, however, both the courts below have meticulously examined the entire proceedings and oral and documentary evidence on the plea of fraud itself. The appellate court has considered the statement of PW-1, who stated that since he had not gone to the Registrar office, he was unable to state as to what happened there and talks in between which person took place. He also said that he did not have any conversation with other witnesses produced. The appellate court has also observed that the plaintiff-appellant despite being a person having good health, did not appear to establish the plea of alleged fraud. The endorsements made by the Registrar and the proceedings held in his office have also been discussed by both the courts below.

As per provisions of Sections 101 to 104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden to establish fraud lies upon the person who alleges the same. Therefore, if the fraud was committed with the appellant, it was his burden to establish the same by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence. Whatever evidence was led in this regard having been found to be not sound to establish the plea of fraud, this Court finds that there was no occasion to disbelieve execution of a registered sale deed.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal and records that both the courts below have correctly appreciated the case of the parties and analyzed oral and documentary evidence in correct perspective.

The findings recorded by both the courts below are pure findings of fact.

The second appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2024 AKShukla/-