Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4788
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Jaswinder Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Jatinder Singh - Respondent
RSA No.6203 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-12-2018
Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for the Caveator/respondent
The importance of proving fraud and passing of consideration in challenging a sale deed, and the requirement of evidence once a document is admitted.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - Evidence Act, Stamp Act - Section 35 of the Stamp Act, Section 68 of the Evidence Act, Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act - M/s SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 305, Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal and another, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 471, Bhargvi Constructions and another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 359
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging a registered sale deed executed by her in favor of her son, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. Defendant contested the suit, claiming lawful consideration for the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The plaintiff failed to prove fraud in the execution of the sale deed. The court found that the sale deed was executed for a lawful consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Validity of the sale deed, entitlement to declaration and permanent injunction, cause of action, relief
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving fraud and passing of consideration in challenging a sale deed. It held that once a document is admitted, it requires no further evidence to be led.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as no question of law worth consideration was involved.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
2. Brief facts are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein she challenged the registered sale deed dated 09.10.2002 executed by her in favour of her son Jatinder Singh in respect of House No.5-B, Dashmesh Nagar, Tripuri Saidan, Patiala. The said sale deed was challenged on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation and the same was claimed to be fraudulent and without consideration. Permanent injunction was also sought seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
3. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had two sons and two daughters. Her husband Baljinder Singh had died. Defendant is elder son of the plaintiff. Younger son of the plaintiff was living separately. Daughter of the plaintiff is a divorcee and she was living with the plaintiff along with her daughter. The suit property was purchased by husband of the plaintiff after taking loan and thereafter the plaintiff and her husband got the house/suit property constructed in the year 1987. Husband of the plaintiff died on 13.05.2007. Plaintiff and her younger son performed his last rites. Plaintiff claimed herself to be in possession of the suit property. She came to know about the registered sale deed and thereafter obtained certified copy of the same on 20.05.2009. Plaintiff asserted that she never sold the house in question to the defendant, nor had received any such consideration. Possession of the house was never delivered to the defendant. Defendant had played fraud upon the plaintiff and managed to get the signature of the plaintiff on the sale deed. The sale deed was never implemented in the revenue record. The sale deed was shown in respect of a plot, whereas house was constructed in the year 1987. The sale deed was claimed to be fake transaction altogether.
4. Defendant contested the suit thereby admitting the relationship between the parties. He admitted that divorcee sister of the defendant is residing in the house along with the plaintiff. Defendant asserted that he had raised the construction with his own funds. Initially the house was constructed by Baljinder Singh i.e. father of the defendant. Defendant had purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs vide sale deed dated 09.10.2002. Plaintiff had appointed her husband as Special Power of Attorney on 09.10.2002 in order to get the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendant. Defendant used to take care of his ailing father, who had extended monetary help to his other son in order to construct the house for him in Dashmesh Nagar, Patiala. Defendant had performed the last rites of his father. Defendant further claimed that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff under the influence of her daughter.
5. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-
"1. Whether the sale deed dated 9.10.02 is without consideration, illegal, null and void and result of fraud and mis representation? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
5. Relief."
6. Onus of issue No.1 was on the plaintiff himself. Both the Courts below have concluded that the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove any fraud in respect of execution of sale deed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sale deed was not properly stamped. No attesting witness of the sale deed was examined. The sale deed was in respect of vacant plot , whereas house was constructed in the year 1987. Defendant was in fiduciary relationship and, therefore, burden to prove the d
