The presumption of validity of registered documents requires specific fraud allegations to extend the limitation period, which were absent in this case, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

ORDER :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. Delay condoned in filing and refiling the SLP.

2. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 23.7.2024 in Regular Second Appeal No. 520/2020 by which the High Court dismissed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit.

3. The petitioner is before us against the concurrent findings of three Courts.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner herein instituted Civil Suit No.310-RBT of 2012 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (SD), Ganaur for declaration with consequential, mandatory as well as permanent injunction.

5. In the plaint, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration may kindly be granted declaring the sale deed no.638 dated 26.05.2008 as well as mutation no. 5340 dt.29.08.2008 be set aside to the extent of 1/2 share executed in favour of the defendant Sunder, who fraudulently, forcibly get executed the sale dead and sanctioned mutation to the extent of 1/2 share of the suit land in his favour.

It is, therefore further prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant directing the defendant to get executed and registered the sale deed as well as rectified the mutation no. 5340 dt. 29.08.2008 to the extent of ½ share of the land detailed in para no.2 of the plaint in favour of the plaintiff, which he got fraudulently, wrongly, illegally got registered in his own favour against the sale consideration already paid by the plaintiff to the vender, in favour of the plaintiff without getting any sale consideration and stamp and registration at his own risk and costs.

It is further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant restraining him from alienating any art of the suit land detailed in para no.2 of the plaint, under the grab of wrong illegal sale deed no. 638 dt. 26.05.08 and mutation no. 5340 dt. 29.08.08 forcibly and illegally to any person for all time to come.”

6. Insofar as the averments regarding the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint is concerned, the same reads thus:-

“That the cause of action firstly secured to the plaintiff only on 26.05.2008, the date of execution and registration of the sale deed to the extent of ½ share of land in favour of defendant out of the suit land. Secondly in March, 2010 when the plaintiff came to know about the above wrong, illegal sale deed to the extent of ½ share in favour of the defendant, and then on 19.09.2012 the date of serving the legal notice through registered post upon the defendant, and lastly on 08.10.2012, the date of last refusal by the defendant to accede the genuine request of the plaintiff.”

7. The trial court framed the following issues for its consideration:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration that the sale deed No.638 dated 26.5.2008 and its mutation No.5340 dated 29.8.2008 are illegal, null and void to the extent of ½ share as prayed for ? OPP.

2. Whether the defendant is liable to be directed to get executed and registered the sale deed as well as rectified the mutation No.5340 dated 29.8.2006(sic) to the extent of ½ share of the land detailed in para No.2 of the plaint in f