Registered documents are publicly known and a suit for declaration of fraud must be filed within the limitation period or it is barred; possession must be proven with cogent evidence.

JUDGMENT

Gurbir Singh, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below.

2. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2019, learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter called as - the plaintiff) has been dismissed.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for symbolic possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.03.2010, in respect of the land as mentioned in the plaint, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as - defendant no.2) from alienating the suit property and from changing the existing nature of the suit property and for declaration that sale deed No.6576 dated 05.09.2011 in favour of defendant no.2 is illegal, null and void and result of fraud and that the subsequent mutations in favour of defendant no.2, on the basis of the said sale deed, are also null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. A further declaration was also sought that any other sale deed and alienation of the suit property in any manner whatsoever be also considered as null and void and nonest.

4. The case of plaintiff in brief is that respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as - defendant no.1), being owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement to sell dated 18.03.2010 with the plaintiff, for selling the suit property for a price of Rs. 9,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 8,50,000/- was paid as earnest money and possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff at the time of agreement to sell. The sale deed was to be executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff on or before 09.04.2012 on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and registered but defendant no.1 instead sold the suit property to defendant no.2 vide sale deed dated 05.09.2011.

5. Defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statement.

6. Case of defendant no.1 is that he neither agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff nor entered into any agreement to sell dated 18.03.2010 with the plaintiff and did not receive any earnest money from him. He also denied his signatures on the said agreement by submitting that if his signatures were found on the alleged agreement to sell, the same be considered as a result of fraud.

7. Defendant no.2 has pleaded that she is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 05.09.2011 and she is owner in possession of the same and being owner, she has every right to deal with it in any manner.

8. The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit property. Neither there is any khasra girdawari in his name nor evidence to show his possession. In the cross-examination, plaintiff stated that he did not know what was the khasra number of the suit property. The agreement to sell was also not proved. The plaintiff was not held to be entitled for relief of specific performance. The relief regarding setting aside sale deed dated 05.09.2011 was also held to be time barred. In all these eventualities, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by learned Trial Court and appeal filed by him before the Lower Appellate Court was also dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that attesting witness Rajbir Singh was examined as PW-1, who proved t