Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos 1A to 1F, 2, 3A, 4 and 5.

10. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the 51sa53-18+ Appellate Court while considering the issue of fraud has not rendered any finding on the aspect of fraud pleaded. Pointing out to paragraph 3A of the Plaint, which was amended during the pendency of the Appellate proceedings, he would submit that specific case of fraud was pleaded that the agreement of re- conveyance dated 20th December, 1980 was not signed by her husband, as the plaintiff's husband used to sign in Modi script and the signature of the plaintiff's husband on the document of 20th December, 1980 was in Marathi. He would contend that the substantial question of law arising is absence of findings of the Appellate Court on aspect of fraud rendering the judgment perverse.

11. Considered the submissions and perused the record.

12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has rightly not advanced any arguments on the concurrent findings of fact as regards the service of summons upon the Plaintiff as the concurrent findings are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The only submission canvassed is that as there is no finding of the Appellate Court on aspect of fraud, there is 51sa53-18+ perversity and as such substantial question of law arises. Perusal of the amended paragraph 3A of the Plaint indicates that fraud is pleaded as the signature stated to be the Plaintiff's husband appearing on the deed of reconveyance was in Marathi whereas the Plaintiff's husband used to sign in Modi script. After the plaint came to be amended at the appellate stage, no application seeking permission for leading additional evidence to establish fraud was preferred by the Plaintiff and resultantly no evidence to substantiate the amended plea of fraud was adduced. The contention of Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that despite there being no evidence on record, the Appellate Court was enjoined to consider the pleading and render a finding on the aspect of fraud is only liable to be rejected. Pleading does not constitute evidence and the Appellate Court while adjudicating the Appeal has rightly re-appreciated the evidence which was on record. As there was no additional evidence led by the Plaintiff to substantiate the case of fraud pleaded in the amended plaint, the Appellate Court could not have rendered any finding on the amended pleading. The Appellate Court has rightly considered the 51sa53-18+ provisions of the Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC in the context of the allegations of non service of suit summons and mentioning of incorrect address. As such there is no perversity in the findings of the Appellate Court.