Allegations of fraud must be substantially proved, and in cases of instruments voidable on the ground of fraud, the time for limitation runs from the date when the plaintiff becomes aware of the fraud.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant who has questioned concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below wherein both the Courts have declared plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property and have further declared that the sale deed dtd. 16/12/1989 is a fraudulent and a void document and consequently, defendant is directed to deliver possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff instituted a suit for possession. Plaintiff also sought the relief of declaration claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff specifically contended that he has acquired the property vide indenture of deed dtd. 20/10/1970. Plaintiff specifically pleaded that owing to his health problems he was compelled to migrate to Nannivala from Bommakkanahalli village. Plaintiff claimed that suit land was given to the husband of defendant who readily agreed to cultivate the land by giving half share in the agriculture yield to the plaintiff. Plaintiff further claimed that when defendant was called upon to handover possession, she declined on the premise that she is the owner of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff immediately rushed to the revenue office and on enquiry found that defendant has concocted a fraudulent document styled as sale deed dtd. 16/12/1989. Plaintiff alleged that this sale deed is created by false personation and therefore, questioned the sale deed to declare it as a void document.

3(a) Defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Though defendant admitted plaintiff's title, however, claimed that after the death of her husband she continued to cultivate the land in question and therefore, she purchased the suit land under registered sale deed dtd. 16/12/1989. Therefore, she claimed to be the absolute owner and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendant also claimed that the suit is barred by limitation.

3(b) Plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P10, while defendant led evidence through her GPA who is examined as D.W.1 and adduced rebuttal documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to 9.

3(c) Pending consideration of the suit, plaintiff filed an application seeking an expert's opinion in regard to the disputed and admitted signatures found on the alleged sale deed. The said application was allowed and the matter was referred to handwriting expert. The handwriting expert has submitted her report which is marked at Exs.C1 to C6 and the handwriting expert is examined as C.W.1. Defendant has not chosen to cross examine the handwriting expert and objections are filed to the report. The Trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence as well as the report of the handwriting expert has come to the conclusion that the alleged sale deed set up by defendant vide Ex.D2 is a fraudulent document and consequently, proceeded to declare the said sale deed as void. The Trial Court having examined the report of the Court Commissioner and other clinching evidence led by plaintiff has come to the conclusion that the sale deed is a created document and therefore, referring to the Commissioner's report, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the sale deed is created by a false personation and on these set of reasoning, the Trial Court has proceeded to decree the suit.

3(d) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has also concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court insofar as the disputed sale deed is concerned. The Appellate Court has also taken note of the Commissioner's repor