JUDGMENT Sabina, J.- Plaintiff-Pawan Kapoor filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-Raj Kumar Singh and others. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 14.1.2008 dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge II Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in paras 1 to 3 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 1. Plaintiff Pawan Kappor instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-Raj Kumar that he be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment and from cutting/removing of trees in the land which is described as under:- East : Quilla Ramgarh (60' +70') West : State Highway Panchkula-Ambala (130'-6") North : Quilla Ramgarh (50' +40') South : Passage (110'), total measuring 2 kanals situated in Abadi village Ramgarh, tehsil and district Panchkula contending that the plaintiff had purchased the plot in question from Raj Kumar daughter of Ajmer Singh vide a sale deed dated 21.7.1995 registered on the same date for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,28,000/-. 2. The defendant was issued notice of the suit who filed a written statement taking the preliminary objections regarding locus standi of the plaintiff, non-joinder of necessary parties and suit being not maintainable. On merits, the sale deed dated 21.7.1995 is alleged to be a forged and fabricated document created in favour of the plaintiff by Amitabh Singh, Amar Singh and Mohan Singh (nephews and brother of defendant-Raj Kumar). It is also averred that the trees in the property have been grown by the defendant and his sons for the last 15 years. In the written statement itself the defendant along with his sons Jayender Singh and Yashwinder Singh have made a counter claim challenging the sale deed dated 21.7.1995 being wrong and invalid as Raj Kumari was neither owner nor had any interest in the suit property that the sale deed is fictitious and forged as Raj Kumari never appeared before the Sub Registrar due to her illness and that the suit property is ancestral and coparcenary property and thus Raj Kumari had no right or title in the said property. Plaintiff filed replication-cum-reply to the counter claim in which he reiterated his original stand also stated that Raj Kumari was the absolute owner of the suit property and she sold the same to him vide sale deed dated 21.7.1995 while appearing before the Sub Registrar. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff become owner of the plaint in question by virtue of sale deed and has been in his possession since then ? OPP 2.Whether the passage in question is the only way to ingress and outgress from the plot of the plaintiff?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for?OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 5.Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit?OPD 7.Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of P.O. no.4 ?OPD 8. Whether the sale deed dated 21.7.1995 is illegal, void and not operative upon the rights of the defendants?OPD(CC). 9. Relief. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Pawan Kumar, plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction basing reliance on sale deed dated 21.7.1995. However, during the pendency of the suit, on 16.3.2004, the plaintiff got the suit dismissed as withdrawn. The defendants had filed a counter claim to the effect that the sale deed dated 21.7.1995 was illegal, void and not operative on the rights of the defendants (Issue No.8). The learned trial Court dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendants and the said finding of the trial Court was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the sale deed dated 21.7.1995 was the result of fraud and consequently, the counter claim filed by the defendants was liable to be decreed. 8. In the present case, the plaintiff had only placed on record the photocopy of the sale deed dated 21.7.1995 (Exhibit R1). The original sale deed dated 21.7.1995 has, however, not been proved on record. The sale deed was impounded by the Office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula on account of the deficiency in stamp duty. 8. In the present case, the plaintiff had only placed on record the photocopy of the sale deed dated 21.7.1995 (Exhibit R1). The original sale deed dated 21.7.1995 has, however, not been proved on record. The sale deed was impounded by the Office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula on account of the deficiency in stamp duty. However, the same was later on released as deficiency in stamp duty had been made good by the plaintiff. RW4 Balwinder Singh, Clerk from the Office of the Sub Registrar Panchkula deposed that the certified copy of the sale deed dated 21.7.1995 was Exhibit R1. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that it could not be said that the sale deed in question was forged or fictitious document. The handwriting expert examined by the defendants gave a report that the disputed signatures of Raj Kumari on the sale deed in question did not tally with her standard signatures. However, the document expert examined by the plaintiff (RW2) gave a report that the questioned signatures of Raj Kumari with her standard signatures on the account opening form were of the same person. Thus, both the hand writing experts had given their reports in favour of the party who had examined them and, in these circumstances, both the Courts below rightly held that the sale deed in question could not be held to be forged on the basis of the statements of the handwriting experts. Moreover by withdrawing the suit, the plaintiff has,thus, withdrawn all the pleas taken by him against the defendants. Both the Courts below, after, appreciating the evidence on record, have given a finding of fact that the sale deed was not a forged and fabricated document and the said finding cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. 9. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ------------