The burden of proof in cases of fraud and misrepresentation in registered documents lies with the party alleging fraud, and clear evidence is required to establish fraud.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. I will be disposing of R.S.A. No.428 of 1985 and R.S.A. No.671 of 1986 by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken separately from R.S.A. No.428 of 1985 and then conjoined with R.S.A. No.671 of 1986 and they appear in the subsequent portion of the judgment.

RSA No. 428 of 1985

2. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 7.1.1985, thereby reversing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vide his judgment dated 31.3.1979 by virtue of which the suit of the plaintiff stood decreed in her favour. A suit was filed by the mother of present appellant pleading that she was the owner in possession of the land measuring 40 kanals and that the mortgage deed dated 16.3.1973 and the sale deed dated 25.2.1974 alleged to have been executed by her with regard to the suit property were a fraudulent transaction and not binding upon her. Along with the suit, a prayer for possession was also made, in the eventuality of the court coming to the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the property. She primarily alleged that she is the owner in possession of the property and that Sulakhan Singh was his son whose betrothal ceremony was performed in the month of March, 1973 with respondent Pal Kaur and their marriage was also performed in April, 1973. Subsequent to their marriage, Sulakhan Singh and Pal Kaur lived as husband and wife . But in the month of June, 1974, the respondent deserted her husband and went to reside with her parents. On 16.3.1973, the respondent got executed one mortgage deed pertaining to the land in dispute against the alleged consideration of Rs.10,000/- and on 25.3.1974, she got a sale deed executed in her favour with regard to the above said land for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. The mortgage amount of Rs. 10,000/- was adjusted against the sale consideration. She denied taking of any amount and said that she was an old lady aged 80 to 85 years and being illiterate, the respondent played a fraud upon her. She thus, pleaded that the mortgage deed dated 16.3.1973 and the sale deed dated 25.2.1974 be declared null and void and and in the eventuality of the respondent being in possession of the suit property, the same be got retrieved from her.

3. Respondent Pal Kaur contested the suit and pleaded that appellant was not the owner in possession of the suit property. However, she admitted that she is the wife of Sulakhan Singh who is the son of the appellant, but denied the allegation of fraud and protected the sale deed and mortgage deed in her favour. She pleaded that she was actually turned out of the house and that the appellant had incurred a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent and executed a Pronote and receipt in support thereof. She thus pleaded that the suit be dismissed. Apart from taking this plea, she also took the plea that the suit was not properly valued as the appellant had prayed for cancellation of the sale deed without fixing advalorum fee, the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The following issues were framed :-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP.

(2) Whether the mortgage deed dated 16.3.1973 and sale deed dated 25.2.1974 are without consideration and are the result of fraud and misrepresentation and as such, are not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP.

(3) Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

(4) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPD.

(5) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.

(5 A). Whether the plaintiff, in the alternative, is entitled to the possession of the land in dispute? OPD.

(6) Relief.

4. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant, but in appeal, the findings of the trial Court were reversed, which has resulted in filing of the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended th