judgment and decree dated 02.12.2019. Two separate appeals preferred by the plain(cid:29)ff—one against the dismissal of his suit and the other against the decree of the counter-claim—were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court by a common judgment dated 29.05.2023, giving rise to the present appeals.

2. The case of the plain(cid:29)ff-appellant was that he was the owner in possession of the house in dispute. According to him, in order to run his business, he intended to raise a loan of ₹3,00,000/- from the defendants and, for that purpose, proposed to mortgage the suit property. It was alleged that the defendants, in connivance with the scribe and a+es(cid:29)ng witnesses, fraudulently got executed a sale deed bearing Vasika No.4171 dated 19.12.2011, under the guise of a mortgage deed, thereby depriving him of his ownership rights. On discovering the alleged fraud, the plain(cid:29)ff ins(cid:29)tuted the suit seeking declara(cid:29)on that the sale deed was null, illegal, void and not binding upon him.

3. The defendants, while controver(cid:29)ng the said claim, pleaded that the impugned sale deed was not the result of any fraud or misrepresenta(cid:29)on. It was asserted that prior thereto, the plain(cid:29)ff had executed an agreement to sell dated 18.03.2010 for a total sale considera(cid:29)on of ₹3,00,000/-, out of which ₹1,50,000/- was received as earnest money. The stamp paper for the agreement was purchased by the plain(cid:29)ff himself and the same was signed not only by him but also by his son. In pursuance of the said agreement, the sale deed dated 19.12.2011 was executed a4er receipt of the balance sale considera(cid:29)on of ₹1,50,000/-. It was further pleaded that the stamp paper for the sale deed was also purchased by the plain(cid:29)ff, the deed was scribed at his instance, and he duly admi+ed the execu(cid:29)on thereof before the Sub Registrar. The defendants further stated that the plain(cid:29)ff, being their close rela(cid:29)ve, was allowed to remain in possession of the suit property as a licensee. Subsequent financial transac(cid:29)ons between the par(cid:29)es, including execu(cid:29)on of a pronote and issuance of a cheque which was dishonoured, were also pleaded to demonstrate that the present suit was a counter-blast to the proceedings under Sec(cid:29)on 138 of the Nego(cid:29)able Instruments Act, 1881. It was also brought on record that even the son of the plain(cid:29)ff had executed a similar agreement to sell and sale deed in favour of the defendants, which was later admi+ed by him, leading to withdrawal of the suit filed by him.

4. The defendants also filed a counter-claim seeking possession of the suit property on the ground that the licence of the plain(cid:29)ff stood revoked. In reply thereto, the plain(cid:29)ff reiterated his original stand.

5. A4er framing of necessary issues and apprecia(cid:29)on of the evidence led by both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plain(cid:29)ff had failed to prove the plea of fraud and that the sale deed dated 19.12.2011 was a valid and legal document. The counter-claim for possession was decreed. These findings were affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court.

6. Assailing the concurrent findings, the sole conten(cid:29)on raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspec(cid:29)ve.

7. This Court has carefully examined the pleadings, evidence and judgments of the Courts below and finds no merit in the said conten(cid:29)on.

8. It is well se+led that a registered sale deed carries with it a presump(cid:29)on of legality and due execu(cid:29)on. The burden to rebut such presump(cid:29)on squarely lies upon the party alleging fraud. Fraud is a serious allega(cid:29)on and must be pleaded with specificity and proved by cogent and convincing evidence. Mere asser(cid:29)ons or suspicions are insufficient to invalidate a registered instrument.

9.