The main legal point established is that for proving fraud, all the required ingredients must be proved, and no injunction can be granted against the true owner in settled possession of the property.

P.S. Rana, Judge.

Judgment:-Present appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1997 titled Hem Singh deceased through his legal representatives Kashmir Singh and others vs. Shakuntla Devi decided on 21st December 2002 and against judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class Jogindernagar District Mandi announced in Civil Suit No. 133 of 1994 titled Sidhu deceased through his legal representatives vs. Shakuntla Devi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Sidhu plaintiff filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of prohibitory injunction pleading therein that plaintiff executed a sale deed of 1/3rd share of land comprised in Khewat No. 36 Khatuani No. 41 Kita 31 measuring 29-4-8 bighas situated in village Shingar/576 III Drangsira Tehsil Jogindernagar District Mandi H.P. It is pleaded that sale deed was executed by the defendant in fraudulent manner and it is further pleaded that sale deed is void and it is further pleaded that consent of plaintiff was obtained through fraud. It is further pleaded that defendant Smt. Shakuntla Devi is daughter of deceased plaintiff Sidhu and deceased plaintiff was an old man of 85 years and was illiterate. It is also pleaded that defendant promised to serve the deceased plaintiff in case Will was executed in her favour and it is further pleaded that defendant brought the plaintiff to Padhar where defendant got executed a sale deed on dated 11.8.1993 in her favour. It is further pleaded that for some time defendant served the plaintiff but thereafter left the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that plaintiff agreed for execution of Will but fraudulently sale deed was got executed by the defendant. It is further pleaded that there was no transfer of property in a voluntary manner and no sale consideration of Rs. 7000/- was received by the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that there was no delivery of possession to defendant and possession continued to be with the plaintiff. Prayer for decree the suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought.

3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of the defendant pleading therein that suit is not maintainable and suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It is further pleaded that suit is barred by period of limitation. It is also pleaded that deceased plaintiff sold his 1/3rd share in the suit land in favour of defendant for a consideration amount of Rs. 7000/- and consideration amount was paid in presence of marginal witnesses. It is pleaded that no fraud was played upon the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint and sale deed has been executed without any fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence. It is admitted that defendant is daughter of deceased plaintiff. It is further pleaded that possession has been delivered to the defendant by plaintiff and plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit was sought.

4. Plaintiff filed replication and re-asserted the allegations as pleaded in the plaint. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the sale deed dated 11.8.1993 registered on 16.8.1993 in respect of suit land in favour of defendant is null and void on account of fraud practised by defendant as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction as prayed for as alleged? OPP

4. Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the suit is barred by the limitation as alleged? OPD

7. Relief.

5. The findings of learned trial Court on issue Nos. 1 to 3 were in negative, findings of learned trial Court on