Registered documents are presumed valid, and the burden of proof for fraud lies on the alleging party, requiring clear and substantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. ( Oral)

CM-2270-C-2020

For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 154 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned.

Civil Miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

RSA-729-2020 (O&M)

Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed by the plaintiff - Bishan Kaur (deceased) through her LR Amarjit Kaur (appellant herein) against the concurrent findings of dismissal of suit filed by her.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit, seeking a decree of declaration that defendant No.3 - Balvir Singh (respondent No.3 herein) has sold out the land measuring 10K-8M (detailed in paragraph No.2 of the trial Court judgment), on the basis of a forged General Power of Attorney (GPA), dated 30.10.2007, to defendants No.1 & 2 (respondents No.1 & 2 herein).

Further, challenge is made to the impugned sale-deed bearing Vasika No. 3800 dated 16.11.2007, and mutation based thereon, which is a consequential relief, based upon the primary relief of getting GPA dated 30.10.2007, declared as illegal.

3. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, following seven issues were framed by learned Trial Court vide its order dated 02.08.2014:-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to the suit for declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to the suit for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs has concealed the material and patent facts from the court? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is e-stopped by her own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs has no locus stand to file the present suit? OPD

7. Relief."

4. Both the Courts below reached to the conclusion that plaintiff - Bishan Kaur is mother of defendant No.3 - Balvir Singh, against whom the allegations of impersonation and forgery were levelled by her. Prime allegation is that defendant No.3 - Balvir Singh, had forged GPA dated 30.10.2007 by making someone else to impersonate as Bishan Kaur, though, she herself never appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Kanshipur (U.K.). Thus, has not affixed her thumb impression upon it.

The Ld. Courts below further reached to the conclusion that plaintiff has taken a plea of fraud by way of impersonation, but in the pleadings of the suit, plaintiff did not even disclose her relationship with defendant No.3 - Balvir Singh, who in fact, is her real son.

Ld. Courts below concluded that consciously, plaintiff has concealed even the name of her husband 'Lachman Singh', by projecting herself as daughter of 'Nihal Singh s/o Bahadur Singh'. Ld. Courts below also concluded that from the wedlock of Bishan Kaur (plaintiff) and said Lachman Singh, two more sons namely; Surjit Singh and Satnam Singh, and two daughters namely; Kartar Kaur and Amarjit Kaur, were born. Even, these details were not brought on record by the plaintiff. Even, after filing of the suit on 20.08.2009, plaintiff survived for about two years and died on 23.04.2011, but to authenticate her pleadings, she never appeared before the Civil Court.

Both the Ld. Courts below, also concluded that once plea of fraud is taken by the party, onus is always heavily upon such party to discharge it, by producing required evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Even, Ld. Trial Court found that the litigation appears to be collusive, as initiated by the plaintiff - Bishan Kaur, against her son i.e. defendant No.3 - Balvir Singh, because, land has