Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Asha Ram (Deceased) Represented By Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Shera (Deceased) Through His Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nidhi Gupta, J.
The plaintiff is in appeal against the concurrent findings returned by the learned Courts below.
2. Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent and files Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction pleading that he is the owner and in possession of the suit land as detailed in Para 1 of the plaint. It was pleaded that the respondent/defendant sought to encroach upon the land of the appellant on the basis of fraudulent sale deed dated 24.3.1966; and the consequent Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 and Khasra Girdawari entries. It was contended that the appellant had never executed any such Sale Deed and had in fact, executed a Mortgage Deed dated 24.03.1966 for an amount of Rs.3,000/- in favour of the respondent.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contends that the submissions made on behalf of the appellant are utterly false. The Sale Deed dated 24.03.1966 (Ex.D1) was a registered document which was duly proven in accordance with law. It is argued that
The plaintiff must establish how fraud was committed and the relevance of consensus ad idem in executing the sale deed in a property dispute.
The burden of proof for fraud lies with the alleging party, and mere allegations without cogent evidence are insufficient to invalidate a valid mortgage deed.
Fraud must be established by clear evidence; a sale deed executed for valid consideration is valid and cannot be canceled without substantial proof of misrepresentation.
Fraud in civil proceedings must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; failure to establish fraud led to dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation.
Registered sale deed's validity prevails over subsequent will recitals absent fraud proof; oral evidence cannot contradict under Evidence Act Sections 91-92.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
