The requirement of specific and cogent evidence to prove fraud, the presumption of validity of a registered document, and the burden of proof on the party challenging the validity of the sale deed.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) for cancellation of the sale deed came to be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed on the ground that on 10.6.2013 he entered into a written agreement with the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendant’) on certain terms and conditions and agreed to sell one bigha out of khasra No. 326/2, measuring 4-5 bighas, situated in Mauza Shattal, Pargana Bochali, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 70,000/-, out of which, Rs. 50,000/- was paid and the remaining Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid lateron. The defendant after obtaining the revenue papers got the sale deed executed on 5.8.2005 which was got drafted from the document writer and signatures of the plaintiff were also obtained on the said sale deed before the Sub Registrar on the pretext that the sale was only for one bigha of the land, whereas the sale deed was executed qua 1-18 bighas for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. The plaintiff claimed to have learnt about this fact in the first week of March, 2006 when he applied for certified copy of the sale deed. The plaintiff claims himself to be an illiterate person and not knowing English and claimed that fraud had been practiced upon him when he was made to sell 1-18 bighas instead of 1 bigha. On the basis of these averments, the plaintiff prayed for declaration to the effect that sale deed was a result of fraud practised upon him and injunction by way of consequential relief was also prayed for.

3. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendant and it was averred that the sale deed had been executed as per the intention of the plaintiff and had been scribed as per his version and thereafter registered in accordance with law. The sale deed was duly read over and explained to the plaintiff not only by the document writer but even by the Sub Registrar before registering the same. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had been adopting the same tactics with other persons to whom he had sold the land and had therefore, come to the Court with un-cleaned hands. It was further averred that the entire sale consideration had been paid to the plaintiff and it was the defendant thereafter who is in possession of the suit land. The defendant accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed replication wherein he re-affirmed the averments as set out in the plaint while denying the defence as set out in the written statement.

5. On 25.9.2012 the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the sale deed dated 5.8.2005 alleged to have been executed by defendant is a result of fraud and cheating, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the aforesaid sale deed is wrong, illegal, null and void? OPP

3. Whether the aforesaid sale deed is liable to be cancelled? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession in alternative? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction? OPP

6. Whether the defendant is in possession of suit land? OPD

7. Relief.

6. After recording the evidence led by the parties and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit constraining the plaintiff to file appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, which too, met with the same fate and undeterred, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal on the same grounds as have been set out in the plaint.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully and meticulously.

7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and furnished his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. In the affidavit, he stated that he got executed an agreement dated 10.6.2003 with the defendant for selling land measuring 1 bigha for