The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, and failure to provide sufficient evidence can lead to the dismissal of the suit.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

1. This is plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed with costs.

2. As per the averments made in the plaint, the previous owners of the suit land duly executed a lease deed dated 27.4.1993 in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 which was registered in the office of Sub registrar Kharkhoda. It has been further averred that plaintiff purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 27.4.1993, for a consideration of rs.1,65,000/- and got the aforesaid lease deed dated 27.4.1993 cancelled by mutual agreement of the parties to the suit, and accordingly, defendant-respondent No.1 handed over the original lease deed to the plaintiff-appellant in token of cancellation of the said lease deed duly signed by him in the presence of witnesses. It is further the case of the appellant that respondent No.1 also executed a receipt in token of acceptance of the cancellation of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff and delivered the possession of the suit land to the appellant, and since then the plaintiff-appellant is in cultivating possession of the suit land. It is further alleged in the plaint that respondent No.1 also agreed to get mutation No.2765 cancelled which was entered in favour of defendant-respondent No.2 on 29.4.1993. However, respondent No.1 executed a lease deed dated 9.6.1997 in favour of respondent No.2 and the same is claimed to be null and void, and was not binding on the rights of the appellant. It has been further averred that the defendants colluded with each other and under the garb of the fictitious lease deed threatened the plaintiff-appellant to take forcible possession of the suit land. Plaintiff-appellant requested the respondents not to do so but in vain. Hence the plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that the lease deed dated 27.4.1993, was not binding upon her rights as she was in cultivating possession of the suit land and that mutation No.2765 be cancelled, and further praying a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents permanently from interfering in the peaceful cultivating possession of the appellant over the suit land.

3. Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that it was incorrect to say that the registered lease deed dated 27.4.1993 was cancelled at any time and possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff-appellant and that respondent No.1 had appended any writings on the back of the original lease deed. It was also denied that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the suit land. It was asserted that respondent No.1 never handed over possession of the suit land to the appellant and that the appellant forged and fabricated documents in this regard which were never executed by respondent No.1. It was further asserted that mutation No.2765 was sanctioned in his favour in accordance with law and he never agreed to get the same cancelled. It was further submitted by the respondents that the suit land was leased out to defendant-respondent No.1 for a period of 60 years and actual physical possession was also delivered to him and he further leased out the suit land to defendant-respondent No.2 vide a registered lease deed dated 9.6.1997 for a period of 48 years and handed over the actual physical possession of the suit land to defendant-respondent no.2. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. On the pleadings o the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 27.9.2001:-

1. Whether the lease deed dated 27.4.1993 stands cancelled by mutual agreement of the parties to the suit OPP

2. Whether the defendant no.1 handed over the possession o the suit land to the plaintiff as alleged in para no.3 of the plaint? OPP