JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 07.08.07, rendered by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal, vide which, he accepted the appeal, against the judgement and decree dated 20.09.05, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Shankar son of Sh. Gobind, was recorded, as owner, in possession of land, measuring 120 kanals, comprising khewat No. 158, khatoni No. 233, rectangle No. 31, killa No. 10 (8-0), 20(8-0), 21(8-0), 22(8-0), rectangle No. 32, killa No. 24(8-0), 25(8- 0), Rectangle No. 47, killa No. 4(8-0), 5(8-0), 6(8-0), and rectangle No. 48, killa No. 1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 8(8-0), 10(8-0), total killas 15, situated in village Nagla Roran, Tehsil and District Karnal. It was stated that Shankar son of Sh. Gobind, died about 20 years back, and after his death, all the heirs of Shankar, mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint, became the joint owners, in possession of the suit land. It was further stated that Surti wife of Shankar, had allegedly suffered a decree, in favour of defendant No. 1 Giana, and after her death, the plaintiff, came into possession of the land, previously belonging to Surti, besides the original share of the plaintiff, which he inherited after the death of Shankar. 3. It was further stated that after the death of Surti, the plaintiff, approached the halqa patwari, for getting the mutation of inheritance entered and sanctioned, in his name, and other legal heirs, and was shocked to know, that defendant No. 1 Giana, by playing fraud upon Surti, and his two sisters obtained a bogus Civil Court, decree dated 04.11.86, passed by the Court of Sh. B. Diwakar, the then Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Karnal, in Civil Suit No. 443 of 1986, titled as “Giana Vs. Surti etc.” in respect of their share, in the land, detailed above, and under the garb of the said decree, defendant No. 1, also managed to get mutation No. 1428 of the share of Surti, and his two sisters sanctioned, in his name. It was further stated that the said decree dated 04.11.86, passed in Civil Suit No. 443 of 1986, was null and void, and liable to be set aside, on the grounds, that it had been secured by practicing fraud on Surti and others. It was further stated that the said decree dated 04.11.86, passed in Civil Suit No. 443 of 1986, was null and void, and liable to be set aside, on the grounds, that it had been secured by practicing fraud on Surti and others. It was further stated that Surti never thumb marked or signed any written statement and other document, in the Court; and that the decree for want of registration did not confer any right of ownership on Giana. Giana, defendant, was many a time asked, not to alienate the suit land, but to no avail. On his final refusal, to admit the claim of the plaintiff, left with no other alternative, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, was filed. 4. Defendants No. 1, 4, and 5, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff, had no cause of action and locus-standi, to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit, was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the suit, was nothing, but misuse of the process of law. It was stated that the plaintiff, was fully aware that a decree, by Surti, and defendants No. 3 and 4, had been suffered, in favour of defendant No. 1; and that a cock and bull story was concocted. It was further stated that the decree dated 04.11.86, in favour of defendant No. 1 is genuine. It was further stated that Smt. Taro, defendant No. 3, was against the plaintiff, and, thus, she alongwith Surti and defendant No. 4, suffered Civil Court decree dated 04.11.86, in favour of defendant No. 1, willfully, and without any pressure. It was further stated that defendants No. 3 and 4, and Surti, came to the Court, appended their thumb impressions on Vakalatnama, and filed their written statement, admitting the claim of defendant No. 1, in toto. It was further stated that the decree, in question, is valid, and no element of fraud is involved. It was further stated that defendant No. 1, became owner of 4/8 share, out of the total land, left by Shankar, and plaintiff had no share, in the land, owned by Surti, as she was always unhappy with him. 5. It was further stated that the decree, in question, is valid, and no element of fraud is involved. It was further stated that defendant No. 1, became owner of 4/8 share, out of the total land, left by Shankar, and plaintiff had no share, in the land, owned by Surti, as she was always unhappy with him. 5. Defendant No. 3, filed a separate written statement, stating therein, that she only came to know about the abovesaid decree, when she received a notice, from the Court of Shri Kuldip Jain, the then Sub Judge, Karnal, in case, titled as ‘Babu Vs. Giana’. After that, she engaged a Counsel, and came to know that defendant No. 1 Giana, procured a Civil decree, in Civil Suit No. 443 of 1986, dated 04.11.86, from the Court of Shri B. Diwakar, the then Sub Judge, Karnal, whereas the fact was that she had never suffered any such decree, in favour of defendant No. 1. It was stated that the said decree, was illegal, null, void, and inoperative, against her rights. It was further stated that defendant No. 1, procured decree, by playing fraud, on Surit, and other defendants. 6. Defendants No. 2 and 6, filed a separate written statement, stating therein, that they had no objection, if the suit of the plaintiff, was decreed, as prayed for. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the judgement and decree dated 04.11.86, passed by Shri Budhi Diwakar, in Civil Suit No. 443 of 1986, and mutation No. 128, sanctioned on the said decree, are illegal, null and void? OPP (ii) If the answer of issue No. 1 is in affirmative, then whether the plaintiff alongwith defendants are entitled to the extent of 1/8th share of the land previously belonging to Smt. Surti in equal shares? OPP (iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has concealed the facts from the Court? OPD (iv) Relief. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 9. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant No. 1, which was accepted by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal, vide judgement and decree dated 07.08.07. 10. OPD (iv) Relief. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 9. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant No. 1, which was accepted by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal, vide judgement and decree dated 07.08.07. 10. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 11. The following substantial questions of law, arise in this appeal, for determination of this Court:- (i) Whether the first Appellate Court, recorded a perverse finding, on account of misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence that the decree impugned was not the result of fraud? (ii) Whether the Courts below, recorded a perverse finding that the decree impugned, creating right, in the land, in dispute, for the first time, worth more than Rs. 100/-, in defendant No. 1, was legal and valid even if unregistered? 12. I have heard the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 13. The Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, submitted that the first Appellate Court, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the decree dated 04.11.86, suffered by Surti Devi and two others, in favour of Giana her son, and brother of other defendants therein, was not the result of fraud. He further submitted that sufficient evidence, was led, that the decree, was the result of fraud, but the same, was misread and misappreciated by the first Appellate Court, resulting into recording of perverse findings, leading to the dismissal of the suit. He further submitted that the decree was illegal for want of registration. He further submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, being illegal,were liable to be set aside. 14. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others [2006(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1414] : (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The controversy, which fell, for decision, before the Courts below, was that, as to whether, the decree P6 dated 04.11.86, suffered by Surti Devi and her two daughters, in relation to their share in the land, in dispute, in favour of Giana, was the result of fraud, or not and whether the decree for want of registration conferred any right of ownership on Giana. It is evident from the documents, on record, that Civil Suit, titled as ‘Giana Vs. Surti etc.’, was filed by Giana. Copy of the plaint is P1. P3, is the power of attorney, executed by Giana, who was the plaintiff, in that suit. Surti and other defendants, in that suit, had admitted the claim of Giana. On the basis of the statement of admission, made by Surti, mother of Giana, and his two sisters, a judgement, copy whereof, is P5, and the decree-sheet copy whereof is P6 dated 04.11.86, were passed, declaring Giana, to be the owner, in possession of the land, in dispute, in that suit to the extent of the share of Surti and her two daughters. No doubt, a plea, was taken by the plaintiff/appellant, in the plaint, that the decree, was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. However, no worthwhile evidence, was produced, by the plaintiff/appellant, son of Surti, to prove, as to how, and, in which manner, the fraud was played. In Union of India Vs. No doubt, a plea, was taken by the plaintiff/appellant, in the plaint, that the decree, was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. However, no worthwhile evidence, was produced, by the plaintiff/appellant, son of Surti, to prove, as to how, and, in which manner, the fraud was played. In Union of India Vs. M/s Chaturbai (1976 Current Law Journal (Civil) 166 (S.C.), the principle of law down down by the Apex Court, was that when a plea of fraud has been taken by a party, it has to be proved like any other charge, whether made in civil or criminal proceedings. However, suspicious may be the circumstances, however strange the coincidence and, however, grave the doubts, suspicion alone can never take the place of doubt. The principle of law laid down, by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, is fully, applicable to the facts of this case. Surti, had survived, for a few years, after suffering the decree. She never assailed the said decree, during her life time. It was only after 13 years, that her other son namely Babu, plaintiff/appellant, challenged the decree, by way of filing a suit. Babu, PW2, during the course of his cross-examination could not state, as to whether, anybody impersonated Surti etc. Babu, plaintiff, examined Ram Dhab Babbar, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, as PW3, who examined the questioned as well as standard thumb impressions of Smt. Parmali, one of the defendants, whose share, was not, in dispute, but the thumb impression of Surti, on her statement of admission, was not got compared with her specimen thumb impression. No doubt, the Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, gave somewhat adverse report, with regard to the thumb impression of Parmali, yet that did not have any effect, so far as the decree, referred to above, was concerned, as there was no dispute, with regard to the share of Smt. Parmali, in the suit, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal, has arisen. She had also not assailed the legality and authenticity of the decree, which was suffered by her, in favour of Giana. On the other hand, when she appeared as DW2, she supported the version of Giana, that she alongwith her mother suffered the Civil Court decree, out of their free will, consent and volition. Ved Prakash, DW3, also made a similar statement. On the other hand, when she appeared as DW2, she supported the version of Giana, that she alongwith her mother suffered the Civil Court decree, out of their free will, consent and volition. Ved Prakash, DW3, also made a similar statement. No doubt, Taro, when stepped into the witness box, as DW6, she stated that fraud, was played upon all of them. She stated that she did not appear, in the Court, to suffer the Civil Court decree, in favour of Giana. She had filed a separate suit, at the instigation of Babu, against Giana, to challenge the legality and authenticity of the decree P6, which was ultimately dismissed. No reliance, on her statement, could, thus, be placed. The first Appellate Court, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the decree, aforesaid, was not the result of fraud. 15. Giana, Surti, Taro and Parmali were the joint owners in joint possession of the land, in dispute. Giana, thus, had right and interest in every inch of joint land. If some of the co-sharers relinquished their right and title in the joint land, in favour of Giana, that did not amount to creating right in the immovable property, worth more than Rs. 100/-, in favour of Giana, for the first time. Even otherwise consent decree, does not require registration in view of the provisions of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. The first Appellate Court, was right in holding so. 16. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct reading and appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality or perversity, and, therefore, warrant no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, thus, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. The judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, are liable to be upheld. The substantial questions of law, depicted above, are answered against the appellant. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. —————