1 ( 2025:HHC:24695 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.322 of 2022 Date of Decision : 25.07.2025 Paras Ram (deceased) through Legal Heirs …… Appellants. Versus Shanti Devi and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants : Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 30/2019 affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.05.2019 passed by the learned Ld. Civil Judge, Karsog, District Mandi in Civil Suit No. 124/2015. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same way as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The material facts necessary for the disposal of the present case are that the plaintiff- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:24695 ) appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed No. 541/2015, dated 03.06.2015, executed in favour of defendant- respondent No. 1 (mother of proforma defendant-respondent No. 2), is null and void, along with a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his rights over the suit land. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 145/235, Khasra Nos. 295, 296, 297, 311, 312, 313, 1610/337, 350, 414, 571, 572, 573, 872, 902, Kitas 14, measuring 06-13-07 bighas, situated in Mauja Upper Karsog, Mohal Sanarli, Hadbast No. 415, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. The plaintiff averred that he and proforma defendant No. 2 became friends in March 2015, and the latter volunteered to repay his outstanding loan of Rs. 1,47,000/- taken from H.P. State Co-Operative Bank, Karsog. Proforma defendant No. 2 also arranged a loan under the Kisan Credit Scheme from Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Pangna Branch, by mortgaging the plaintiff’s land in Muhal Salog/318, Tehsil Nihri, District Mandi, H.P., and took Rs. 1,50,000/- from the loan amount for the repayment made to the Co-Operative Bank. The plaintiff alleged that he was made to sign certain papers under the influence of liquor, with the assurance that four shops would be constructed on his share of the suit land, to be equally divided between him and proforma defendant No. 2. Later, the plaintiff discovered that a sale deed had been registered in favour of defendant No. 1, and he contended that he never 3 ( 2025:HHC:24695 ) intended to sell his land, alleging misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy in obtaining his signatures. 3. The defendants filed a joint written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel, unclean hands, mala fide intent, lack of locus standi, absence of cause of action, and improper valuation. On merits, they denied the plaintiff’s allegations and asserted that the plaintiff voluntarily executed the sale deed after purchasing the e-stamp, depositing the requisite fee, and receiving Rs. 6,00,000/- as consideration. They claimed that the sale deed was read over and explained to the plaintiff, who signed it in the presence of witnesses, and possession was duly delivered to defendant No. 1. 4. The trial court framed the following issues on 28.08.2016: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration to the effect that sale deed No. 541/2015, dated 03.06.2015 is liable to be declared null and void and having no binding effect on the right of defendant, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from causing any sort of interference, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the alleged sale deed has been executed without any force, pressure, undue influence and in his free will, as alleged? OPD (amended vide order dated 31.05.2019) 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by way of his own act, conduct, deed and acquiescence, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 4 ( 2025:HHC:24695 ) 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD 10. Relief 5. After recording evidence, wherein the plaintiff examined two witnesses and the defendants examined five witnesses, the trial court dismissed the suit. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal, wherein it was contended that the trial court failed to appreciate that the sale deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, as the plaintiff was made to sign the documents under the false pretext of constructing shops. It was argued that the consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- was never paid, and the plaintiff never intended to sell the land. The appellant further submitted that defendant No. 1 admitted in cross-examination that she had met the plaintiff for the first time on 03.06.2015, which belied the defendants' claim of a prior agreement. It was also contended that proforma defendant No. 2, being a material witness, was not examined by the defendants, and thus, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against them. Despite these submissions, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the trial court, therefore the present second appeal was filed. 7. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 5 ( 2025:HHC:24695 ) 8. If the evidence of the present case is looked at, the plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. While he admitted signing the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, he claimed ignorance of its contents, alleging that he believed it to be an affidavit for constructing shops. His cross-examination also revealed material contradictions, as he initially admitted being in his senses during registration but later claimed intoxication when questioned by the court. He also alleged that the proforma defendant prompted him to falsely admit receiving consideration and delivering possession, an assertion which was absent in his plaint. Such shift in stands undermine his credibility. 9. A crucial piece of evidence that further demolishes the plaintiff's case is the cancellation of the power of attorney (Ex.DX) executed by him in favour of one Puran Chand. The recitals of this document explicitly acknowledge that the plaintiff had sold 00-06- 08 bighas of land to Smt. Shanti Devi (defendant no.1) for a consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs through a registered sale deed. The plaintiff cancelled this power of attorney citing a dispute with Smt. Shanti Devi over the "sale consideration amount." This document, in which the defendants had no role, completely contradicts the plaintiff's pleadings in the suit. On one hand, he alleges fraud and misrepresentation in the execution of the sale deed, while on the other, he admits to a dispute over the sale consideration amount, thereby implicitly acknowledging the sale transaction. This 6 ( 2025:HHC:24695 ) approbation and reprobation is impermissible in law, and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take such contradictory stands. 10. Conversely, the defendant’s evidence was cogent and consistent. The Sub-Registrar (DW2) testified that the sale deed was read over and explained to the plaintiff, who acknowledged its contents before signing. The scribe (DW3) affirmed drafting the deed at the plaintiff’s behest and explaining its terms, while an attesting witness (DW5) corroborated its execution. Though none witnessed the payment or possession transfer, their testimonies aligned with the statutory presumption under Section 60 of the Registration Act, which deems the Registrar’s endorsement as proof of due execution. The defendant (DW4) maintained her stance despite minor inconsistencies (e.g., first meeting the plaintiff on the execution date), which were natural given the four-year lapse. 11. The plaintiff failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving fraud. His self-serving claims, unsupported by credible evidence, could not outweigh the documentary and testimonial proof of valid execution. The courts below rightly held the sale deed genuine, rejecting the plaintiff’s belated and contradictory assertions. 12. Besides the aforesaid, the case of Ramathal & Ors. v. K. Rajamani (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 2023 SC 3978, relied upon by the appellant's counsel, is distinguishable from the present case on several material aspects. In Ramathal, the 7 ( 2025:HHC:24695 ) plaintiffs were illiterate landowners who executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) solely for the limited purpose of developing the land into plots, but the defendant fraudulently inserted additional clauses authorizing sale and transfer, which were never intended. The Supreme Court upheld the plea of non est factum, holding that the document's character was fundamentally misrepresented, rendering it void. 13. In contrast, the present case involves no such radical misrepresentation. The plaintiff admittedly signed the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, acknowledged receiving consideration, and even cancelled a subsequent power of attorney (Ex.DX) that explicitly referenced the sale, thereby undermining his claim of ignorance or fraud. Unlike Ramathal, where the PoA’s misuse was immediate (same-day sale to family members at undervalued rates), the present defendants’ conduct lacks such glaring mala fides. Moreover, the plaintiff’s shifting stands, i.e. initially admitting sobriety before the Sub-Registrar but later alleging intoxication, further weaken his plea of non est factum, which requires consistent proof of a fundamental misunderstanding of the document’s nature. The statutory presumption under Section 60 of the Registration Act, coupled with the endorsements by the Sub- Registrar and scribe, reinforces the validity of the sale deed, unlike in Ramathal, where the original PoA was never produced and its terms were blatantly violated. Thus, the principle of non est factum, applied in Ramathal due to unequivocal fraud and illiteracy, finds 8 ( 2025:HHC:24695 ) no footing in the present case, where the plaintiff’s own actions and contradictions negate any claim of bona fide misunderstanding. 14. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) July 25, 2025 (KS) Judge