Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the judgment and decree rendered by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby the suit seeking declaration that plaintiff is co-sharer in possession and owner to the extent of 7 kanals 2 marlas of land (1/4th share) out of 28 kanals 8 marlas of land, bearing Khewat No. 3, Khatoni No. 3, Khasra Nos. 17/3, 8, 13, 18/1, 28/18/2, 35/13/1 and as well as challenge to the sale deed dated 11.11.1992 in favour of defendant No. 3 with respect of 1/4th share in 20 kanals 4 marlas of land bearing Khasra No. 17/3, 8, 13, situated in Village Salempur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur being forged and ineffective, has been dismissed.
(2.) Mr. Sandeep Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the suit aforementioned was filed on the ground that plaintiff Kailash Chander Rai and defendant No. 2 Duni Chand are the sons, whereas defendant No. 1 is the widow of Dr. Gurbax Rai, who died in the year 1976. Mutation of his estate was sanctioned in favour of the aforementioned persons as per the terms of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Gurbax Rai deceased was owner of land measuring 32 kanals 14 marlas including the land in dispute. He sold part of the land vide mutation No. 1932-1933, but remained the owner of 28 kanals 8 marlas of land as per jamabandi for the year 1977-78. The plaintiff became co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share as mentioned above and was, thus, in joint possession of the same. Defendant No. 3 Gurmail Singh alleged that plaintiff along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had executed the sale deed, aforementioned, in respect of land measuring 20 kanals 4 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs. 47,000/-. Plaintiff never signed the same nor appeared before the Scribe or the Sub Registrar. Somebody had impersonated him. Allegations of forgery, impersonation, much less fraud had been averred in view of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 4 CPC.
(3.) During the pendency of the suit, appellant-plaintiff had suffered a paralytic attack and virtually had become of unsound mind. Accordingly, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was moved allowing the wife Smt. Satya Kanta Rai to continue with the suit as next friend. The same was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.5.2000. In order to prove the alleged forgery, misrepresentation and fraud, Handwriting Expert PW-1 Arvind Sood was examined, who examined the questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q3 in English on various pages of the sale deed dated 11.11.1992 and compared the same with the standard signatures marked S1 to S3 and it was found that the signatures were not of the identical person.;