The main legal point established is that in cases of property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming ownership through a sale deed, and failure to produce the original sale deed and evidence of fraud can lead to dismissal of the claim.

L.N.Mittal, J.

1. Defendant Jaswinder Kaur has filed the instant second appeal after having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

2. Suit was filed by Charan Singh (since deceased and represented by his son Narinder Singh - respondent as his legal representative). The plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanals 10 marlas. Defendant has no right, title or interest therein. However, the defendant alleges herself to be owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 29.12.1994. The plaintiff pleaded that he never executed the said sale deed. The said sale deed, if any, is illegal and null and void and result of fraud. By giving particulars of fraud, the plaintiff pleaded that he is also owner in possession of other 1.1 kanals 19 marlas land, which he agreed to sell to defendants sons Inderjit Singh etc., vide agreement dated 25.05.1994 @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and the plaintiff received Rs.80,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on 31.12.1994. However, the plaintiff was brought to Tehsil office on 29.12.1994 for execution of sale deed as per said agreement. Plaintiffs signatures were obtained by telling him that the sale deed was regarding the other land, to which the agreement pertained. However, the plaintiff later on learnt that the sale deed has been got executed regarding the suit land (which was not subject matter of the agreement to sell) in favour of the defendant by changing khasra numbers. On the same date, endorsement regarding extension of date of sale deed from 31.12.1994 to 10.07.1996 was also obtained on the back of agreement to sell alleging further payment of Rs.50,000/-. The said endorsement was also claimed to be false and fabricated. The plaintiff never received any farther amount nor executed the said endorsement. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land and that defendant has no right, title or interest therein. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from taking possession thereof illegally or forcibly and from alienating the same. The plaintiff, by amendment of plaint, pleaded that during pendency of the suit, defendant had dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly. Accordingly, the plaintiff also sought relief of possession of the suit land.

3. The defendant controverted the plaint allegations and raised various preliminary objections. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land and sold it to the defendant vide registered sale deed dated 29.12.1994 and since then, defendant is owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest therein. The sale deed is legal and valid. It was pleaded that vide endorsement dated 29.12.1994, made on the back of agreement to sell, date of sale deed regarding land of the agreement was extended and further amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2002, decreed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that original sale deed was lost and certified copy thereof from the registration record was produced and got proved as Ex.D-1, but the same has not been taken into consideration by the courts below. The contention cannot be accepted because iearned counsel for the appellant, in spite of repeated inquiry, could not tell if permission for leading secondary evidence of the sale deed was obtained and granted. In the absence of