ORDER :

By way of this appeal filed under Section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.III, Amb, District Una, HP in Civil suit No. 794 of 2014, titled as Satya Devi versus Sham Lal, dated 30.4.2016, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the present appellant stood dismissed by the Learned Trial Court, as also for setting aside the judgment passed by the Court of Learned Additional District Judge (I), Una, Circuit Court at Amb, in Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2017, titled as Satya Devi versus Shyam Lal, dated 16.7.2019, vide which the appeal filed by the present appellant against the judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court stood dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties for the purpose of admission and also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below.

3. Appellant herein filed a suit for declaration that she had inherited the suit land from her husband Shri Daulat Ram. She was issueless and defendant who was her nephew had approached her in the month of July, 2004 and advised her to take benefit of an old age pension scheme. He took her to Tehsil Amb, on the pretext of signing documents so that she could be granted old age pension by the Welfare Department. Defendant got signed a document from the plaintiff which in fact was a gift deed qua the suit land purported to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. She never executed any gift deed on 19.7.2002, in favour of the defendant and the deed was procured by the defendant by exercising undue influence upon her and was a result of fraud, misrepresentation in connivance with the marginal witnesses and the deed writer. It was further the case of the plaintiff that mutations which were attested by the defendant on the strength of the gift deed were also null and void. According to the plaintiff, about two month before the filing of the suit, illegal threats were extended to her by the defendant of her being ousted from her abadi and defendant also threatened to alienate the suit land on the basis of the said gift deed and this is how the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the gift deed. It was on these facts that the suit for declaration stood filed by the plaintiff that the gift deed are bad in the eyes of law.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant inter-alia on the ground that the gift deed was duly executed by the plaintiff in his favour in lieu of service rendered by him to the plaintiff. At the time of the execution of the gift deed, the plaintiff was in sound and disposing mind and the gift deed was executed by her out of her own free will and not under any coercion or undue influence.

5. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by holding that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that any fraud was committed upon her by the defendant. Learned Trial Court held that the gift deed was duly proved by DW1, Malkiyat Chand, DW2, Santosh Kumar, retired Sub Registrar Amb and DW4, Vijay Kumar as well as PW5 Hari Singh, who were the attesting witnesses of the gift deed. It held that what animosity DW1, DW4 and DW5, were having with the plaintiff, could not be explained or established by the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court took note of the fact that in her cross-examination, the plaintiff had admitted that the witnesses had no enmity with her. Learned Trial Court also held that the conduct of the plaintiff created suspicion that she had not approached the Court with clean hands as was evident from the fact that she even refused to identify her photo on the gift deed which in fact was her own photograph as observed by the Court at the time of her cross examination. Learned Court also held that the credibility of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff was doubtful as it had come in evidence that people from the village had filed complaint against witness PW2 Ashok