A party alleging fraud must provide specific evidence to substantiate claims, and registered documents have a presumption of validity, which must be rebutted.

Judgment

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

CM-13894-C-2019

Present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for seeking condonation of delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons enumerated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-4870 of 2019(O&M)

1. Present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the concurrent findings of dismissal of civil suit.

2. Suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of declaration, declaring the impugned sale deeds dated 09.01.1984 and 21.09.1983 and their mutations No. 2815 and 2768 as null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever.

3. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that previously Bhajni @ Bhajan Lal s/o Fattan and Chameli d/o Fattan were owners to the extent of 1/7the share i.e. 8 Kanals 6 Marlas each, of the land bearing Khewat No.518, Khata No.651, Khasra No.137 situated in the revenue estate of Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Chameli, during her lifetime, executed a registered sale deed dated 09.01.1996 in favour of her brother Bhajni @ Bhajan Lal bequeathing all her rights in the suit property as well as in other properties in favour of her brother. After some time, Chameli expired on 27.12.1998. Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni also expired on 27.02.2012. After their death, plaintiffs being legal heirs of Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni acquired the properties of deceased-Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni and Chameli in equal shares.

4. It was further pleaded that father of the plaintiffs and some other co-owners, who are also defendants in the present suit had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Faridabad Complex Administration, which was decreed on 28.04.1995. Thereupon, first appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.03.1999 and RSA No.3026 of 1999 was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court, even, SLP filed by the M.C. Faridabad was also dismissed on 06.08.2008, thus, decree dated 28.04.1995 passed against M.C. Faridabad by learned trial Court, was maintained and upheld.

5. Further contended, in the month of October, 2008, co-owners namely, Bihari Lal through legal heirs had filed an execution petition against MC Faridabad of decree dated 28.04.1995. Said execution petition was instituted without impleading the plaintiffs and legal representatives of Chameli as necessary parties. On becoming aware of the said fact, father of the plaintiffs moved one application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., but during the pendency of the said application, Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni expired and in this way, plaintiffs were impleaded as party in place of Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni in the said execution proceedings. It is during the proceedings of the said execution application that the defendants disclosed that Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni and Chameli had already executed their sale deeds qua their respective share in favour of one Sumer Singh s/o Bhajan Lal, Om Parkash s/o Devi Ram, Dharam Pal s/o Bhim Singh, Raj Kumar s/o Bihari Lal and Rajesh Kumar s/o Khem Chand. Thereafter, on inspecting of the said execution file, plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deeds which have been impugned by way of the present suit proceedings.

6. The basic plea of the plaintiffs is that ‘had there been any knowledge of execution of the sale deeds at their instance, there was no reason for Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni to get himself impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings. This conduct clearly shows that till the execution proceedings of decree dated 28.04.1995 taken place there was no knowledge with Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni that any sale deed, which have been impugned herein had been executed at his instance or at the instance of Chameli, thus, plaintiffs want the Court to believe it to be an act of fraud committed upon the so called sellers in the sale deed i.e. Bhajan Lal @ Bhajni and Chameli.

7. While considering the plea of fraud, learned trial Court observed in specific that neither there is any spec