- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff, aggrieved of the dismissal of her suit by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ratia, vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2013 and that of the learned first Appellate Court (Additional District Judge-I), Fatehabad, vide his judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015.
(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was for possession by way of declaration, with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant, in respect of land measuring 3 Marlas out of the total land measuring 8 Marlas, being 3/8th share comprised in Khasra No. 705//13/8/2/2 (0-8), situated in village Ratia, District Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The defendant is stated to be the brother of the plaintiff. As per the plaint, he is a "very clever person" and got executed sale deed No. 2081 dated 20.03.1998, in respect of 3 Marlas of land, after producing some other lady to impersonate as the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff never sold the said 3 Marlas of land and also did not receive any sale consideration. The alleged sale deed is thus alleged to be a bogus and forged instrument, null & void and thus liable to be cancelled. On the basis of the alleged sale deed, mutation No. 12308 dated 07.05.1998 was also entered and sanctioned, which is also consequently alleged to be wrong, against law and facts, null & void and liable to be cancelled. About six months prior to the institution of the suit, the defendant is stated to have taken forcible possession of a shop constructed on 3 Marlas of land, in the absence of the appellant. She is stated to have resisted, upon which the defendant told her that she had executed a sale deed. It was then that the appellant came to know of the said bogus and forged sale deed executed by the respondent. She convened a Panchayat, in which the respondent gave an assurance to her that he would get the alleged sale deed cancelled and would give possession of the land to her. However, one week prior to institution of the suit, he threatened to alienate the land to some other person.
(3.) Before the trial Court, the appellant examined herself as PW-1 and relied upon the following documents:- "Ex. P-1 : Photocopy of sale deed No. 2081 dated 20.03.1998 Mark-A : mutation No. 12274" The respondent, on the other hand, examined himself as DW-1, hand-writing and finger print expert Shamsher Singh Malik as DW-2 and relied upon the following documents:- "Ex. D1: Original Sale deed No. 2081 dated 20.03.1998; Ex. D2: mutation No. 12274; Ex. D3: mutation No. 12308; Ex. D4: jamabandi for the year 1998-99; Ex. D5: jamabandi for the year 2003-04; Ex. D6: jamabandi for the year 2008-09; Ex. Dw2/A: report of handwriting expert; Ex. DW2/B1 to B11: Photographs; Ex. DW2/C: specimen sheet and Mark-A: Release deed No. 943 dated 07.07.2010" The trial Court framed the following issues to determine the rights of the parties:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land as fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint OPP 2. Whether sale deed No. 2081 dated 20.03.1998 in favour of defendant in respect of the suit land is illegal, null & void being the result of fraud and misrepresentation, having no binding effect on the rights of the plaintiff and thus, is liable to be set aside OPP. 3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession in respect of the suit land OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with the clean hands and has concealed the material facts OPD 7. Whether the suit is time barred OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct OPD 9. Relief.";