RSA-1793-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1793-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Krishan Chander (since deceased) through his LRs and Anr. ...Appellants Versus Kartar Singh Saini and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate and Ms. Apurva Rathee, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plain.ffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees, whereby their suit seeking declara.on that they con.nued to be lessees in possession under earlier registered lease deeds and for declaring registered lease deed No.897 dated 31.05.2013 together with muta.on No.203 dated 07.06.2013 as null and void on the ground of fraud, has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court and the said findings have been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 2. The plain.ffs pleaded that on 31.05.2013 several sale deeds were simultaneously executed and registered and, taking advantage of the situa.on, defendant No.1, who was known to them and in whom they reposed confidence, fraudulently procured their signatures upon the impugned lease deed by represen.ng that they were merely signing as a<es.ng witnesses to the sale deeds. According to them, no lease considera.on passed, possession was never delivered and the lease deed was a product of fraud. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1793-2026 (O&M) [2] 3. The defendants contested the suit by asser.ng that the lease deed had been voluntarily executed by the plain.ffs a=er fully understanding its contents; the agreed lease amount for seventy-five years was paid in lump sum; receipt acknowledging payment was executed; original lease deeds were handed over by the plain.ffs; possession was delivered and subsequent revenue entries correctly reflected the possession of the defendants. 4. On apprecia.on of the evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. The learned First Appellate Court independently re- appreciated the en.re evidence and affirmed the findings. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the impugned lease deed was procured by fraud. It is argued that sixteen documents were registered within a short span of .me and, therefore, the plain.ffs had no occasion to know that one of those documents was a lease deed. It is further argued that the lease amount men.oned in the document was wholly unrealis.c, no considera.on actually passed and the plain.ffs con.nued in possession of the suit property. It is also submi<ed that the defendants failed to examine the deed writer and one of the a<es.ng witnesses and, therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against them. 6. Having heard learned counsel and examined the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 7. The founda.on of the plain.ffs' case is the allega.on of fraud. It is se<led law that fraud is required to be pleaded with complete par.culars and proved by cogent and convincing evidence. Mere suspicion or improbability cannot subs.tute legal proof. The burden squarely rested upon the plain.ffs. 8. In the present case, the lease deed in ques.on is a registered YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1793-2026 (O&M) [3] document. A registered instrument carries a presump.on of due execu.on. The endorsement made by the Registering Officer under the provisions of the Registra.on Act raises a statutory presump.on that the executants appeared before the Registering Officer, admi<ed execu.on and that the statutory formali.es contemplated under Sec.ons 32, 34 and 60 of the Registra.on Act stood duly complied with. Such presump.on is rebu<able but can be displaced only by reliable and convincing evidence. 9. Both the Courts below have rightly no.ced that the plain.ffs admi<edly appeared before the Sub Registrar on the relevant date. The registra.on endorsement records their admission regarding execu.on of the document. Except their bald asser.on that they believed themselves to be signing as witnesses, no independent evidence has been produced to rebut the statutory presump.on a<ached to the registra.on. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that the plain.ffs had signed the lease deed on every page as executants and not merely as a<es.ng witnesses. 10. Another significant circumstance no.ced by both the Courts below is that the original earlier lease deeds remained in possession of the defendants. No sa.sfactory explana.on has been furnished by the plain.ffs as to how those original documents came into the defendants' possession. The plea subsequently sought to be developed regarding loss or misuse of the documents is neither supported by contemporaneous pleadings nor by convincing evidence. This circumstance materially corroborates the defence version that the earlier lease documents were consciously delivered at the .me of execu.on of the subsequent lease deed. 11. The submission that the lease amount was too low also does not advance the appellants' case. Mere inadequacy of considera.on, by itself, cannot invalidate a registered transac.on, par.cularly when the executants themselves admit their signatures on the document. The adequacy of considera.on is ordinarily not a ma<er for judicial scru.ny YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1793-2026 (O&M) [4] unless it forms part of a legally established case of fraud, coercion or undue influence. In the present case, those founda.onal facts have not been proved. 12. Equally devoid of merit is the conten.on regarding possession. The recital contained in the registered lease deed records delivery of possession. The subsequent revenue entries relied upon by the defendants are also consistent with such recital. The explana.on furnished by the Courts below that the Kharif crop entries would naturally con.nue in the name of the previous cul.vator, whereas the subsequent Rabi entries reflected possession of the defendants, is both logical and supported by the record. No perversity is shown in such apprecia.on of evidence. 13. The cri.cism that the deed writer or another a<es.ng witness was not examined is also misconceived. One of the a<es.ng witnesses was examined and supported the execu.on of the document. More importantly, the document being a registered lease deed did not require mandatory proof in the manner contemplated for documents such as Wills. Once execu.on stood admi<ed and statutory registra.on stood proved, non- examina.on of every person connected with the registra.on process does not by itself render the document doubJul. 14. The learned First Appellate Court has independently re- appreciated the en.re evidence and has assigned detailed reasons for affirming the decree of dismissal. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based upon proper apprecia.on of documentary as well as oral evidence. No material evidence has been ignored, nor has any inadmissible evidence been relied upon. 15. It is well se<led that the jurisdic.on of this Court under Sec.on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substan.al ques.ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with merely because YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1793-2026 (O&M) [5] another view is possible. Interference is warranted only when the findings are shown to be perverse, based upon no evidence, or suffering from a patent error of law. 16. In the present case, the appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, misreading of evidence or applica.on of an incorrect legal principle by either of the Courts below. The dispute sought to be raised is essen.ally factual and does not give rise to any substan.al ques.on of law. 17. Consequently, no substan.al ques.on of law arises for considera.on. 18. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are upheld. Pending miscellaneous applica.ons, if any, also stand disposed of. 09.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document