A party alleging fraud in obtaining signatures on a registered document must provide specific pleadings and prove the fraud with material evidence; a signatory cannot later claim the document was fraudulent without discharging this burden.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Hareesh Bhandary T, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shridhar N. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1, 4 to 8.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs with regard to item Nos.1 to 19 in O.S.No.191/2018 are appellants in the second appeal.

3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4. There is no dispute among the relationship of the parties as is prescribed in the plaint.

5. Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.191/2018 for declaration and injunction to declare that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the owners of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule properties’) and for cancellation of registered partition deed dated 08.02.2018 and Jubani partition entered into on 09.02.2018.

6. Suit on contest came to be dismissed on the ground that without the cancellation of registered partition deed, oral partition is impermissible.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.52/2023.

8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and noted that in the registered partition deed dated 08.02.2018 item No.20 of the suit property was left out and therefore, allowed the appeal in part granting 1/9th share to the plaintiffs in item No.20 of the suit properties and dismissed the appeal insofar as the other reliefs are concerned.

9. Being further aggrieved by the same, it is the plaintiffs who have approached this Court in this second appeal on the following grounds:

➢ That the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable under law.

➢ It is submitted that the Courts below have committed serious material irregularities and illegalities while appreciating the material evidence available on record and the entire approach made by the Courts below into the matter in dispute is erroneous in law.

➢ At the outset, it is to be noticed that Ex. P1 partition deed dated 08.02.2018 registered on 09.02.2018 before the Registrar. That the Ex.P2 to P8, which are garniary with houses are not part of the partition deed dated 08.02.2018 registered on 09.02.2018. Very astonishing incidents taken place. On the same day, a unregistered Jubani partition was entered between the parties which in fact produced before the Court and the same is not marked. That the Courts below erred in not considering the conspicuous incident when on the one hand the registration of partition deed taken place on 09.02.2018 and on what circumstances Ex.P2 to P8 properties are not included in the partition deed thereby Suspicious prompting to enter a jubani partition. Suspicious circumstances and conspiracy not ruled out and the Courts below failed to note this aspect, much less that the defendant No.1 at para 6 of his evidence states that the said Jubani parikath dated 09.02.2018 is bogus. Therefore, it manifest that these item properties are not part of the partition deed at Ex.P1 nor does he do not deny such properties Ex.P2 to P8 are not part of partition deed dated 8.2.2018 registered on 09.02.2018 nor does it belongs to the family of the plaintiffs and defendants.

➢ It is submitted that the defendants have not denied the relationship of the plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants have also admitted that the 1st appellant was the 2nd wife of original propositus one Late Patil Nagendrappa and the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are his daughters through