Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Kaur And Others vs Uttar Singh And Others on 17 February, 2026
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CM-13927-C-2025 & CM-13928-C-2025 IN/&
RSA-2395-1990(O&M)
Date of decision : 17.02.2026
Amarjit Kaur and others ... Appellants
Versus
Uttar Singh and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate
for the applicants-appellants.
Mr. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Tarranum Madan, Advocate and
Mr.Jayaditya Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
INDEX Paragraph Page no.
1. Application for condonation 1of delay 2. Application for restoration 2 of appeal
3. Challenge in the present 1 2&3 appeal
4. Arguments on behalf of the 2&3 3&4 appellants/LRs of the plaintiff
5. Arguments on behalf of the 4&5 4 to 6 respondents/defendants
6. Analysis and Findings 6 to 23 7 to 22 CM-13927-C-2025 Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the 1 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:51 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 2 Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 425 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, present application is allowed and the delay of 425 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration is hereby condoned.
CM-13928-C-2025 This is an application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 06.08.2024.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 06.08.2024 is recalled and the main appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number. RSA-2395-1990 CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL
1. The LRs of the plaintiff Gurdev Singh have filed the present appeal. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 12.08.1987 passed by the trial Court vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 25 kanals fully detailed in the head note of the plaint and that the sale deed dated 24.12.1984 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 is illegal, has been dismissed. Challenge is also to the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1990 vide which the appeal filed by the LRs of the 2 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 3 plaintiff (present appellants) has also been dismissed by the Ist Appellate Court.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/ LRS OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. Learned counsel for the appellants / LRs of the plaintiff has submitted that the sale deed dated 24.12.1984, which is stated to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants no.1 and 2, is illegal and deserves to be set aside, as fraud had been played upon the plaintiff by defendant no.3, who is father of defendants no.1 and 2, in getting the said sale deed dated 24.12.1984 executed. It is argued that in fact defendant no.3-Jagjit Singh had approached the plaintiff and had stated that since there was a bore installed in his land, thus, defendant no.3 would be able to get a loan amounting to Rs.16,000/- from the government for the purpose of installation of the bore and since the bore was already there in the land, thus, the plaintiff would not have to bear any expenses. It is submitted that said defendant no.3 had further stated that on account of subsidy, the plaintiff would be required to return only Rs.12,000/- and it was the case of the plaintiff that in view of the said allurement of defendant no.3, the plaintiff executed the document dated 24.12.1984, which was told to him to be executed for the purpose of security of the loan but actually turned out to be a sale deed. It is further submitted that the said document was never read over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had affixed thumb impressions on the understanding that the said document was being executed for the 3 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 4 purpose of getting loan from the government.
3. It is argued that the plaintiff had made specific averments in the plaint, to the above effect, alleging fraud by the defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiff had appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and had fully supported his case and had substantiated the fraud. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in the present case, as per the sale deed there were two attesting witnesses, one being Lal Singh Lambardar and the other being Roop Singh Panch and none of the said attesting witnesses had been examined by the defendants and thus, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the defendants. It is argued that it is the plaintiff, who is in possession of the land in question and in case the sale deed had been executed, then, the possession would have been taken by the defendants and the very fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question would show that no sale deed was executed by the plaintiff but the said document was fraudulently prepared by the defendants. It is submitted that fraud has been played upon the plaintiff by the defendants and thus, the suit of the plaintiff should be decreed and the judgments of the trial Court as well as Ist Appellate Court dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS
4. Learned senior counsel for the respondents / defendants, on the other hand, has argued that it is a matter of settled law that the onus to prove 4 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 5 fraud is on the plaintiff and that the said onus has not been remotely discharged in the present case. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of Privy Council dated 27.05.1941 titled as "A.L.N. Narayanan Chettyar and another vs. Official Assignee, High Court Rangoon and another" reported as 1941 AIR PC 93. It is submitted that the plaintiff apart from examining himself has not examined any other witness nor has referred to any material to even remotely prove fraud. It is submitted that the plea raised by the plaintiff in the plaint is contradictory to the evidence of Lal Singh in the mutation proceedings, which has been relied upon and produced by the plaintiff as Ex.P4. It is submitted that it was the duty of the plaintiff to have produced substantial oral and material evidence to prove the plea of fraud and in fact attesting witnesses should have been examined by the plaintiff and for the non-examination of the same, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the plaintiff. It is argued that the plaintiff and his family members have made every endeavour to extract money from the defendants, as immediately after filing of the present suit, the sons of the plaintiff through their mother had filed a suit challenging the same sale deed on 02.03.1985 and the trial Court in the said case vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.1987 had dismissed the said suit. It is submitted that under issue no.4 in the said suit, the trial Court had found that the sale made by the present plaintiff was for legal necessity and the said finding has attained finality, inasmuch as, there is nothing on record to show that the present plaintiff 5 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 6 (defendant no.1 therein) or even sons of the plaintiff or his wife had filed any appeal against the said judgment and decree.
5. It is argued that the defendants, on the other hand, had examined DW-1, Sub Registrar as well as DW-2, Deed writer, who had duly produced and proved on record the sale deed dated 24.12.1984 (Ex.D1). It is submitted that a perusal of the sale deed would show that the plaintiff had thumb marked the said sale deed at five places and it had also been recorded that a consideration of Rs.26,000/- had been paid to the plaintiff and that the possession had been given to the defendants. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, it cannot be argued by the plaintiff that he is still in possession and in fact it is the defendants, who are in possession of the suit property. It is submitted that a perusal of the sale deed (Ex.D1) would show that endorsement had also been duly made by the Sub Registrar and under the provision of the Registration Act, 1908 there is presumption regarding the averments made in the said endorsement, which has not been remotely rebutted by the plaintiff. It is argued that a registered document has presumption in its favour and heavy onus is on the person who wishes to rebut the said presumption and that the same has not been remotely rebutted in the present case and a completely false plea has been taken by the plaintiff only to extract money from the defendants. It is submitted that in view of the same, the appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed and the judgments of the trial Court as well as Ist Appellate Court deserve to be upheld.
6 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 7 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned senior counsel for the respondents and has perused the paper book and also record of the trial Court and is of the opinion that the judgments of the trial Court as well as Ist Appellate Court are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld, whereas the regular second appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons which have been detailed hereinafter.
7. Admittedly, plaintiff-Gurdev Singh had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of land measuring 25 kanals comprised in Khewat no.490 Khatoni no.1049 Khasra no.147//1, as per jamabandi for the year 1978-79, situated in the area of Mandi Kalan and that the sale deed dated 24.12.1984 which was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 was illegal, null and void. It was the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.3-Jagjit Singh, who was the father of defendants no.1 and 2, had come to the plaintiff and had stated that he could get a loan of Rs.16,000/- from the government in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of installing a bore and since there was already a bore in the land of the plaintiff, thus, no expenses would be incurred on the said bore and the plaintiff would be able to obtain a loan of Rs.16,000/-. It was further the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that defendant no.3 had told him that since there was subsidy on the same, thus, he would be liable to return only Rs.12000/- and since the plaintiff had become greedy, thus, he 7 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 8 had given consent to the same and thereafter defendant no.3 got the plaintiff to Phul and got a document dated 24.12.1984 executed from him after stating that the said document had to be executed as surety for the abovesaid loan and the plaintiff on the said understanding affixed his thumb impressions on the said document. It was further the case of the plaintiff that when the plaintiff learnt that actually the defendants had got a sale deed executed from the plaintiff, then, he filed the present suit on 07.02.1985.
8. It was the case of the defendants in the written statement that the plaintiff had duly executed a registered sale deed and the stamp for the same had been purchased by the plaintiff himself and that he had got sale deed scribed from the deed writer in the presence of the witnesses and he had affixed his thumb impressions after admitting the same to be correct and that he had produced the said sale deed for the purpose of registration before the Sub Registrar, Phul and even before the Sub Registrar, Phul, the same was read over to the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses and after hearing and understanding the contents of the said sale deed, he had affixed his thumb impressions in the presence of the Sub Registrar. It was further the case of the defendants that the said sale deed was for a consideration, which was duly recorded in the sale deed and it was the defendants who were in possession of the said property. It was averred in the written statement that in fact it was the plaintiff who in conspiracy with his wife and his sons had got another suit filed challenging the sale deed in question and was thus trying to put pressure on the defendants for extracting more 8 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 9 money. In the written statement all the details with respect to earlier agreement between the plaintiff's father as well as defendant no.3-Jagjit Singh with respect to the land measuring 12 acres were also mentioned, however, the details of the same have not been noted as they are not relevant for deciding the present appeal.
9. The trial Court had framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land?OPP.
2. Whether the sale deed dated 24.12.1984 is the result of mis- representation and fraud practised by the defendants upon the plaintiff as alleged in para No.3 and 4? OPP.
3. Whether Gurdial Singh the father of the plaintiff mortgaged the suit land alongwith some other land given on Hissa, with possession with Jagjit Singh defendant No.3, through a writing dated 12.3.1984 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-? If so, its effect?OPD.
4. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 are the bonafide purchasers without notice and for consideration?OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by way of his act, and conduct?OPD.
6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?OPD.
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD.
8. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the suit?OPD.
9. Relief."
Issue no.1 was decided in favour of the defendants and while deciding the said issue, it was observed that since the plaintiff had failed to show that the sale deed had been executed by fraud or misrepresentation, which had been detailed and discussed under issue no.2, the plaintiff was no longer the owner of the property and that it was the defendants, who were 9 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 10 the owners and in possession of the suit property.
10. Issue no.2 was the most important issue, which was also decided by the trial Court in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Under the said issue, it was observed that the onus to prove that the sale deed had been executed by fraud and misrepresentation was on the plaintiff and the same was to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the plaintiff other than examining himself, had not examined any other witness to prove the same. It was observed that even the statement of attesting witness which was recorded in the mutation proceedings and was produced by the plaintiff on record as Ex.P4 contradicted the plea taken by the plaintiff in the plaint, inasmuch as, it was the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that he had executed the document dated 24.12.1984 for obtaining loan for the tubewell but a perusal of Ex.P4 showed that the attesting witness had stated that the plaintiff had represented to him that the defendants had got a mortgage deed executed from the plaintiff. The trial Court had also taken into consideration the evidence of DW-1 Naib Teshildar as well as DW-2 Deed Writer, Bhagwan Dass, who had duly proved the sale deed (Ex.D1), which was a registered document as well as the fact that it was not the case of the plaintiff that he had not signed Ex.D1. The plea with respect to undue influence or sale deed being without consideration or inadequate consideration was rejected, as it was observed that there was no such evidence to prove the same and at any rate, the consideration was duly mentioned in the sale deed. Reference was also 10 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 11 made to the suit instituted by the sons of the plaintiff through their mother challenging the same sale deed, which was dismissed by the Court.
11. Under issue No.4, it was observed that defendant No.3 had detailed the manner in which the price was paid to the plaintiff while appearing as DW4 and the said issue was also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Under issue no.5, it was observed that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit in view of his acts and conduct. After considering the above-said material issues, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and it was observed that defendants No.1 and 2 had become owner in possession of the property in question.
12. The LRs of the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court vide judgment dated 05.11.1990. The 1st Appellate Court had taken into consideration the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and had further observed that the plaintiff had only examined himself and there was no material evidence or even circumstance to support his plea of fraud/misrepresentation. The fact that the plea in the plaint was contradictory to the evidence of Lal Singh in the mutation proceedings which had been exhibited as Ex.P4 was also taken note of and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
13. It is a matter of settled law that fraud like any other charge of criminal offence, whether made in civil or criminal proceedings, must be established beyond reasonable doubt and that howsoever suspicious the circumstances or grave the doubts may be, suspicion alone can never take 11 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 12 the place of proof. The Privy Council, in the case of A.L.N. Narayanan Chettyar (supra), laid down the said legal principle. In the said regard, further reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India Vs. M/s. Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co., reported as 1976 AIR SC 712, in which the above-said settled law was highlighted and it was observed that the appellant therein was not able to make out a case of fraud. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Hemalatha (D) by LRs Vs. Tukaram (D) by LRs & Ors.", reported as 2026 INSC 82 has further observed that it is a settled position of law that a registered sale deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness and that registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document and thus, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a "sham" document and the Court should be cautious against the growing tendency to challenge registered instruments 'at the drop of a hat' and in case the sanctity of registered documents is diluted, it would erode public confidence in property transactions and jeopardize the security of titles. It was further observed that a person alleging that a registered deed is sham etc. must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars in his pleadings and evidence. In the said case, the allegations/arguments raised with respect to inadequacy of consideration was rejected by observing that mere allegations of inadequacy of consideration does not make the deed void.
12 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 13
14. With the above-said settled law in mind, this Court would examine whether in the present case the plaintiff has been able to prove fraud. It is not in dispute that the case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that defendant No.3-Jagjit Singh had approached the plaintiff and that the plaintiff already had a bore installed in his land and the said defendant No.3 had told the plaintiff that he would get a loan for the plaintiff amounting to Rs.16,000/- from the government to install the bore, which was already installed and since there was subsidy on the said loan, thus, the plaintiff would only be required to return a sum of Rs.12,000/-. It was also the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that it was on account of greed of saving Rs.4,000/- and for getting the loan, he gave his consent to defendant No.3 and thereafter defendant No.3 took the plaintiff to Phul on 24.12.1984 and got scribed the document, which he stated was for the purpose of surety for the above-said loan. The fact that the plaintiff had thumb marked the said document was admitted in the plaint itself. The above-said plea was set up by the plaintiff in the plaint to allege fraud. The plaintiff was required to prove the said plea beyond reasonable doubt whereas the sole witness which the plaintiff had examined was plaintiff himself as PW1. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff to substantiate the plea of alleged fraud.
15. The plaintiff did not examine any of the attesting witnesses to support his plea but had placed on record the statement of Lal Singh son of Gurdit Singh, who was the lambardar of the village, which was recorded during mutation proceedings on 30.04.1985, which was immediately after 13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 14 the present suit had been instituted on 07.02.1985. The said statement which has been relied upon by the plaintiff and has been exhibited by the plaintiff himself as Ex.P4 would show that the plea taken by the plaintiff in the plaint stands contradicted by the statement of the said Lal Singh. As is apparent from Ex.P4, the said Lal Singh, was declared hostile as he was trying to support the case of the plaintiff, however he had admitted in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the original registry dated 24.12.1984 and the same bears his signatures as a witness. Importantly, in the cross- examination, the said Lal Singh had volunteered to state that he had inquired from plaintiff-Gurdev Singh as to whose registry it was, to which the said Gurdev Singh had replied that Jagjit Singh (defendant No.3) had got a mortgage registry executed from him (plaintiff) in lieu of Rs.26,000/-. It is thus apparent that as per the said statement, the said Lal Singh had stated that the plaintiff had informed him that Jagjit Singh had got a mortgaged deed executed for an amount of Rs.26,000/-, whereas, in the plaint the plea which had been set up is with respect to defendant No.3 suggesting to the plaintiff for taking a loan from the government for an amount of Rs.16,000/- and the document dated 24.12.1984 was executed as a surety for the same. Thus, the plea of fraud stands contradicted from the pleadings and the documents produced by the plaintiff himself. A further perusal of the said document Ex.P4 would show that it had been admitted by the said Lal Singh in his cross-examination that Roop Singh, who was another attesting witness, had appended his signatures on the sale deed in 14 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 15 the presence of Lal Singh and that he had put his testimony on the sale deed in question after inquiring from Gurdev Singh and that it was correct that he had identified Gurdev Singh and Roop Singh before the Sub-Registrar and that on the same day, Gurdev Singh-plaintiff had given a special power of attorney in favour of defendant No.3-Jagjit Singh and that Lal Singh had put his testimony on the same as a witness. The said special power of attorney dated 24.12.1984, which has been duly exhibited as Ex.D2, in the present case was also put to the said Lal Singh who had admitted his signatures on the same.
16. In the present case, it is also apparent that the plaintiff had made every endeavour to harass the defendants and to get the sale deed in question set aside. In addition to the present suit which was filed by the plaintiff on 07.02.1985, it has been proved on record that sons of the plaintiff through their mother Amarjit Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh had also instituted Civil Suit No.108 of 02.03.1985. The said suit was for possession and was instituted against Gurdev Singh (plaintiff), who was impleaded as defendant No.1, Avtar Singh and Gurdeep Singh, who are present defendant Nos.1 and 2, were impleaded as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the said suit. The said suit filed by the sons of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.05.1987 which had been duly exhibited as Ex.D7 and decree sheet regarding the same had been exhibited as Ex.D8. A perusal of the judgment Ex.D7 would show that sons of the plaintiff had set up a case that the property was ancestral coparcenary property and thus, the sale deed dated 15 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 16 24.12.1984, which is subject matter of dispute in the present case, as well as another sale deed dated 08.08.1984 were not binding on the said plaintiffs. In the said case, five issues were framed and issue No.4 reads as under:-
"4. Whether the sale deeds dated 24-12-1984 and sale deed dated 8-8-84 were executed and registered by Gurdev Singh defendant No.1, for legal necessity? OPD."
Under issue No.4, the trial Court had found that the sale deeds were executed by defendant No.1 therein, who is plaintiff herein, for legal necessity and had received due consideration. Relevant portion of the finding under issue No.4 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Issue No.4
11. In this respect, the learned counsel for the defendants referred to recitals in the sale deeds Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 and asserted that money was needed by defendant Gurdev Singh for domestic expenses. Guardians of the defendants when appeared as DW4, asserted that due amount was paid to the defendant No.1 for purhcase of the suit land which is supported by recitals in the sale deeds themselves. Accordingly, it is proved that sale-deeds were executed by defendant No.1, for legal necessity. Moreover, in view of my findings in respect of issue No.3, defendant No.1, was exclusive owner of the suit property and could alienate the suit property in any manner. When defendant No.1, admitted in the sale-deeds that he received the consideration, the plaintiffs cannot challenge his statement....."
17. In the said suit, it was also observed that the suit property in the hands of defendant No.1-present plaintiff could not be held to be ancestral coparcenary property and thus, the suit was accordingly dismissed. From the 16 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 17 perusal of the above judgment, it is apparent that the sale deed dated 24.12.1984 was not executed, was not anybody's case/plea. It is not in dispute that the said judgment has not been further challenged and has attained finality and thus, finding in the said case including that of issue No.4 is binding on the parties, which includes the present plaintiff who was defendant No.1 in the said suit. PW1-Gurdev Singh in his cross- examination had admitted the fact that he had transferred the land in the name of his wife and sons and that civil suit No.108 of 02.03.1985 was filed by his sons through his wife, which was filed after consulting him. It was further admitted by the said PW1 in his cross-examination that he, his wife and children were living in the same house. From the abovesaid facts, it is apparent that it was in collusion with the plaintiff that his sons through his wife had filed civil suit No.108 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.05.1987. Thus, the plaintiff had made every endeavour to harass the defendants and the said aspect had been rightly considered by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
18. The sale deed dated 24.12.1984, which is a registered document is duly proved on record as Ex.D1. A perusal of the said sale deed would show that the plaintiff has thumb marked the same at five places. His thumb impression is there on every page and also on the endorsement which had been made by the Sub Registrar. Further perusal of the sale deed would show that it had been stated that consideration of Rs.26,000/- had been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. Figure of Rs.26,000/- matches with the 17 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 18 figure which had been mentioned by Lal Singh in his evidence which has been exhibited as Ex.P4. It was also stated in the sale deed that possession had been given to the defendants. Thus, argument raised by the counsel for the appellant/LRs of appellant with respect to possession is completely misconceived.
19. In addition to the abovesaid documentary evidence, the defendants had also led oral evidence to fully prove the sale deed as well as its contents. DW1-Pala Singh, Naib Tehsildar had appeared in witness-box and had specifically stated that the sale deed was read over to Gurdev Singh and the plaintiff (Gurdev Singh) had admitted it to be correct and Gurdev Singh had affixed his thumb impression in his presence after admitting it to be correct and the said Gurdev Singh was identified by Lal Singh Lambardar, whom the Sub Registrar personally knew. The true translation of the relevant portion of evidence of DW1 (translation has been done by the Translation Branch of this Court) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"DW1 Pala Singh Naib Tehsildar, Nihal Singh Wala on SA.
On 24.12.1984, I was posted as Naib Tehsildar cum Joint Sub Registrar at Phul. I have seen the original Sale Deed dated 24.12.1984. It was presented before me for registration by Gurdev Singh son of Gurdial Singh. It was read over and explained to Gurdev Singh. Gurdev Singh admitted that the Sale Deed bear his thumb impression and the contents got scribed by him. It was presented in the presence of witness Lal Singh Nambardar and Roop Singh Member Panchayat. The Sale Deed was read over to Gurdev Singh and he admitted it as correct and this Sale Deed is 18 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 19 Exhibit D1. Gurdev Singh affixed thumb impressions on Exhibit D-1/A in my presence after admitting it to be correct. He was identified by Lal Singh Nambardar. I personally knew Lal Singh in the capacity of Nambardar. Lal Singh Nambardar and witness Roop Singh bore testimony upon Exhibit D-1/A in the presence of Gurdev Singh. I had verified it. When it was presented before me, Gurdev Singh was in sound disposing mind. Exhibit D2 - Special Power of Attorney presented by Gurdev Singh for getting sanctioned mutation on the basis of this sale deed was verified by me. Lal Singh Nambardar put testimony on it."
The said evidence is further supported by the evidence of DW2-Bhagwan Das who was the Deed Writer. The true translation of the relevant portion of evidence of DW2 (translation has been done by the Translation Branch of this Court) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"DW2 Bhagwan Das s/o Karamchand s/o Lachhman Singh, Deed Writer, Phul on SA.
The Sale Deed Exhibit D-1 has been typed by me. The same was typed at the instance of Gurdev Singh. The contents thereof were read over to him. After admitting the same to be correct he affixed his thumb impression thereon. Lal Singh Nambardar and Roop Singh Panch had put testimony on it. Jagjit father of the vendee was present on behalf of the vendee. He appended signatures on behalf of the vendees. I identify my signatures and stamp on Exhibit D-1. The Power of Attorney Exhibit D-2 has also been typed by me. It was typed at the instance of Gurdev Singh. After admitting the same to be correct he affixed his thumb impression. Lal Singh had put testimony."
19 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 20
20. Nothing has been referred to from the cross-examination of the said witnesses on behalf of the appellant so as to shake their credibility.
21. From the abovesaid facts, it is apparent that the sale deed which is a registered document, had been duly proved on record. Even endorsement of the Sub Registrar had been proved. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jasvir Singh Vs. Mohan Singh and others reported as 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 654, had considered in detail the procedure for the purpose of registration of documents. Sections 32, 34 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 were taken into consideration and after considering the said provisions, it was observed that strong presumption is attached about the correctness of the contents of the Registration Certificate, which certified that in fact the person therein himself had appeared before the Sub Registrar and had admitted the execution of the sale deed therein. It would be relevant to note that SLP filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.09.2010. The law laid down in the abovesaid judgment would also apply in the present case, inasmuch as, execution of the sale deed as well as the endorsement has been duly proved in the present case and there is nothing on record to rebut the strong presumption in favour of the same. To the similar effect, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Dass and others vs. Smt.Devki and others reported as 1978 PLR 390 observed that a reading of provisions of India Registration Act, moreso, Sections 58, 59 and 60 leads to the conclusion that registration of a document is a solemn act to be 20 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 21 performed in the presence of a competent officer whose function is to ensure that proper persons are before him and are identified to his satisfaction and further that all things done before him in his official capacity and verified by his signature, would be presumed to be in order and duly done. In the said case it was further observed that in view of the contents of endorsement, it was not necessary for Shiv Dass (party therein) to produce any other evidence apart from the certified copy of deed in proof of execution of it.
22. In the present case the plaintiff, on whom the onus was to prove the fraud, has not even remotely proved the same rather the defendants who have the registered the sale deed in their favour had produced sufficient materials to prove the said sale deed. Thus, the findings of the trial Court as well as Ist Appellate Court on the said aspect are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants/ LRs of the plaintiff are all meritless and deserve to be rejected. Nothing has been referred to on behalf of the appellants to show that they are in possession of the suit property. Moreover once the execution of the sale deed is duly proved and plaintiff has not been able to show that the said document was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, then, the recital in the said sale deed would be binding on the parties and since in the said sale deed it is mentioned that possession had been given to the defendants, thus, it cannot be said that it is the plaintiff, who is still in possession of the property. Moreover, at any rate, a sale deed cannot be set aside even if it is 21 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 ::: RSA-2395-1990(O&M) 22 assumed that it is the plaintiff, who is in possession.
23. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court and there was no error in the judgments of the trial Court as well as Ist Appellate Court. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial Court as well as Ist Appellate Court are upheld and the present regular second appeal being meritless, is dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE February 17, 2026.
Davinder/Naresh/Pawan
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
22 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 01:49:52 :::