Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The plaintiff as well as the defendant preferred appeals against the judgement and decree dated 20.08.2014, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurdaspur. Learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissed both the appeals vide impugned judgement and decree dated 05.04.2017.

Aggrieved therefrom, both the plaintiff and the defendant have filed the present appeals.

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant-Jarnail Singh vehemently argues that thumb impression of the defendant was found to be smudged and therefore, the handwriting expert, DW-3-Kranti K. Sharma, could not give a definite opinion regarding the same. The fact that the thumb impression is smudged, shows the effort on the part of the plaintiff to prepare a fraudulent document. Moreover, FIR No. 119 dated 18..09.2003, under Sections 461, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station City Hoshiarpur, in respect to the preparation of the said fraudulent document was registered at the instance of the defendant. The plaintiff, in his cross-

4 of 8 R.S.A No.6357 of 2017 and RSA No. 3418 of 2018 (O&M) 5 examination admitted that he was involved in another matter regarding the preparation of a fraudulent document in which one of the attesting witnesses namely Raghbir Singh, is the same person who is claimed to have attested the agreement to sell dated 31.01.2002. Thus, keeping in view the track record of the plaintiff, it is contended that the document is proved to be a fraudulent one. Furthermore, no person would wait for one year for the execution and registration of the sale deed, having paid most of the consideration amount. It is thus prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant- defendant-Jarnail Singh, be allowed and consequently the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed throughout.