The failure to prove fraud and misrepresentation in the execution of a release deed, and the application of legal provisions from the Evidence Act and Indian Stamp Act, influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Ranjan, J. - I have heard the parties and perused the records of this case.

2. The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in Appeal No.2-C-A of 2009 dated 25.01.2011 by which he has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Hisar in Civil Suit No.288-C of 2005 dated 26.11.2008.

3. The appellants here were plaintiffs before the trial Court and obviously, respondent was the defendant. Civil Suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are having title over half share in the agricultural lands of Khasra No.88//15(80) measuring 16 Kanals situated at Village Agroha, Tehsil & District Hisar and further that release deed bearing No.1775 dated 12.06.2001 ( brought on record by the plaintiffs as Ex.P-4) is null and void without consideration and not enforceable against the plaintiffs and, thus, not binding upon them as the same is based onmisrepresentation and fraud and, thus, is liable to be set aside and subsequent entries in the revenue records are also liable to be set aside and corrected in the names of plaintiffs in place of defendant. The plaintiffs sought further relief for passing a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the aforesaid land and further, for restraining him from claiming himself to be the owner of the aforesaid land and from alienating, transferring or incumbering the property in dispute in favour of the third party.

4. Short facts of this case which emanate out from the respective pleadings of the parties and are necessary for consideration of Us, stand enumerated as under:

5. Plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that their father, v.i.z., Sh.Prahlad Singh purchased the aforesaid property through a Registered sale deed dated 02.07.1979 from Sh.Mool Singh son of Khubi and others. It is stated that the suit land was purchased by father of the plaintiffs out of his own earnings and, thus, it would have to be treated as self acquired property. Father of the plaintiffs died on 24.11.1997 and accordingly, plaintiffs names were mutated in his place by revenue authorities. The plaintiffs are recorded as co-owners in possession of the aforesaid land to the extent of l/4th share each alongwith Smt.Ved Wati and Sh.Satender Pal Singh (brother of the plaintiffs). It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs were in need of money for extension of their business of Newspaper publication and the defendant, who happens to be real paternal uncle of the plaintiffs, offered financial help to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffsobtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the defendant which was repayable on or before 12.02.2005 along with interest @ 12% per annum. The plaintiffs themselves offered the defendant to get executed some security with respect to the land and, as a result of which, the deed of release, which has been brought on record as Ex.P-4, was executed on 12.06.2001 and the same was got registered by the competent authority of the State. It is further claimed that the defendant assured that execution of the document was a mere formality and had assured that the same would be cancelled when the plaintiffs would repay the loan amount with interest. Claim of the plaintiffs is that loan, which with interest came to Rs. 1,44,000/-, was paid to the defendant in the presence of certain persons and request was made to the defendant to get the release deed cancelled. However, despite assurance, even after Panchayat was also convened, the defendant did not cancel the released deed. Hence, the present suit has been filed.

6. It is alleged in the plaint that the release deed is without consideration and based upon fraud and misrepresentation, thus, it is liable to be set aside as it could not have been executed in favour of the defendant as the land in question was not ancestral.

7. In response to the summons issued, th