JUDGMENT : - P.S. Rana, Judge. Judgment:-Present appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1997 titled Hem Singh deceased through his legal representatives Kashmir Singh and others vs. Shakuntla Devi decided on 21st December 2002 and against judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class Jogindernagar District Mandi announced in Civil Suit No. 133 of 1994 titled Sidhu deceased through his legal representatives vs. Shakuntla Devi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Sidhu plaintiff filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of prohibitory injunction pleading therein that plaintiff executed a sale deed of 1/3rd share of land comprised in Khewat No. 36 Khatuani No. 41 Kita 31 measuring 29-4-8 bighas situated in village Shingar/576 III Drangsira Tehsil Jogindernagar District Mandi H.P. It is pleaded that sale deed was executed by the defendant in fraudulent manner and it is further pleaded that sale deed is void and it is further pleaded that consent of plaintiff was obtained through fraud. It is further pleaded that defendant Smt. Shakuntla Devi is daughter of deceased plaintiff Sidhu and deceased plaintiff was an old man of 85 years and was illiterate. It is also pleaded that defendant promised to serve the deceased plaintiff in case Will was executed in her favour and it is further pleaded that defendant brought the plaintiff to Padhar where defendant got executed a sale deed on dated 11.8.1993 in her favour. It is further pleaded that for some time defendant served the plaintiff but thereafter left the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that plaintiff agreed for execution of Will but fraudulently sale deed was got executed by the defendant. It is further pleaded that there was no transfer of property in a voluntary manner and no sale consideration of Rs. 7000/- was received by the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that there was no delivery of possession to defendant and possession continued to be with the plaintiff. Prayer for decree the suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of the defendant pleading therein that suit is not maintainable and suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Prayer for decree the suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of the defendant pleading therein that suit is not maintainable and suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It is further pleaded that suit is barred by period of limitation. It is also pleaded that deceased plaintiff sold his 1/3rd share in the suit land in favour of defendant for a consideration amount of Rs. 7000/- and consideration amount was paid in presence of marginal witnesses. It is pleaded that no fraud was played upon the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint and sale deed has been executed without any fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence. It is admitted that defendant is daughter of deceased plaintiff. It is further pleaded that possession has been delivered to the defendant by plaintiff and plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit was sought. 4. Plaintiff filed replication and re-asserted the allegations as pleaded in the plaint. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the sale deed dated 11.8.1993 registered on 16.8.1993 in respect of suit land in favour of defendant is null and void on account of fraud practised by defendant as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction as prayed for as alleged? OPP 4. Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by the limitation as alleged? OPD 7. Relief. 5. The findings of learned trial Court on issue Nos. 1 to 3 were in negative, findings of learned trial Court on issue No. 4 were in affirmative and findings of learned trial Court on issue Nos. 5 and 6 were in negative. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by deceased plaintiff namely Sidhu. Sidhu died during pendency of civil suit and his legal representatives were brought on record by learned trial Court. 6. 5 and 6 were in negative. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by deceased plaintiff namely Sidhu. Sidhu died during pendency of civil suit and his legal representatives were brought on record by learned trial Court. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court legal representatives of deceased Sidhu filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge Mandi and learned Additional District Judge Mandi vide judgment dated 21.12.2002 affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by legal representatives of deceased Sidhu. 7. Following oral evidence adduced by parties:- Sr. No. Name of the witness PW1 Hem Singh PW2 Ravi Prakash Sharma PW3 Jhabe Ram PW4 Gurdass DW1 Shakuntla Devi DW2 Som Dev DW3 Tek Singh DW4 Dalip Singh 7.1 Following documentary evidence was adduced by parties:- Sr. No. Description Ext. PW1/A Copy of sale deed dated 11.8.1993 Ext.PW1/B Copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92 Ext.DW1/A Sale deed dated 16.8.1993 Ext.DW2/A Signatures of Shri Som Dev Ext.DW3/A Signatures of petition writer Shri Tek Singh Ext.DW4/A Signatures of identifier Shri Dilip Singh 8. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below deceased Hem Raj filed RSA No. 143 of 2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law on dated 28.11.2003:- 1. Whether findings of the learned trial Court and first Appellate Court are result of misreading of evidence on record, which if read would lead to the opposite conclusion? 9. Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and Court has also perused the entire record carefully. Oral evidence adduced by the parties 10.1 PW1 Hem Singh has stated that Shri Sidhu was his father. He has stated that Sidhu during his life time filed a suit against Shakuntla. He has stated that Sidhu during pendency of suit died. He has stated that defendant is his real sister. He has stated that defendant used to visit her parents. He has stated that defendant requested the deceased plaintiff Sidhu to execute Will in her favour in order to claim Bartandari right. He has stated that his deceased father told him that defendant had executed the sale deed in fraudulent manner. He has stated that possession of suit land was not transferred to defendant. He has stated that defendant requested the deceased plaintiff Sidhu to execute Will in her favour in order to claim Bartandari right. He has stated that his deceased father told him that defendant had executed the sale deed in fraudulent manner. He has stated that possession of suit land was not transferred to defendant. He has further stated that defendant did not pay any consideration amount of Rs. 7000/- to Sidhu. He has stated that copy of sale deed is Ext.PW1/A and copy of jamabandi is Ext.PW1/B and same be read in evidence. In cross examination he has stated that he is posted as driver in HRTC and he is posted in Baijnath depot. He has stated that he was posted in Baijnath depot and prior to 1996 he was posted in Kullu depot. He has stated that he used to visit his father occasionally. He has further stated that in the year 1983 he was posted at Kullu. He has denied suggestion that altercation took place between deceased Sidhu and his wife in the year 1993. He has denied suggestion that in the year 1993 deceased Sidhu went to residential house of defendant. He has denied suggestion that deceased Sidhu took Rs. 7000/- from the defendant. He has stated that relations of his deceased father Sidhu and defendant were cordial. He has denied suggestion that deceased at the time of his death informed that he has received Rs.7000/- from the defendant and he has also denied suggestion that deceased Sidhu had informed at the time of his death that he had alienated the land in favour of the defendant. 10.2 PW2 Ravi Parkash registration clerk posted in office of Sub Registrar Padhar has stated that he is posted in the office of Sub Registrar since 1988 and since 1995 he is posted as registration clerk and he has brought the summoned record and copy of summoned record is Ext.PW1/A which is correct as per original record. 10.3 PW3 Jhabe Ram has stated that parties are known to him and Sidhu Ram has died. He has stated that his house is situated at the distance of 2 K.m. from the house of Sidhu Ram. He has further stated that about two years ago Sidhu Ram and Shakuntla were sitting nearby the petition writer Padhar. 10.3 PW3 Jhabe Ram has stated that parties are known to him and Sidhu Ram has died. He has stated that his house is situated at the distance of 2 K.m. from the house of Sidhu Ram. He has further stated that about two years ago Sidhu Ram and Shakuntla were sitting nearby the petition writer Padhar. He has stated that Shakuntla told him that Sidhu Ram would execute a Will and Shakuntla further requested him to sign the document as marginal witness. He has stated that petition writer was writing the document and deceased Sidhu Ram was dictating and he has further stated that Shakuntla Devi defendant was standing nearby Sidhu Ram. He has stated that age of Sidhu Ram was 80 years and contents of document were not read over to him. He has further stated that contents of document were not read over to Sidhu Ram and no consideration amount was paid. He has further stated that defendant Shakuntla is not in possession of suit property. He has also stated that Shakuntla is residing in her in-laws house. He has stated that Shakuntla used to visit her parental house occasionally. He has further stated that document was produced before the Sub Registrar for registration of document. He has denied suggestion that he is deposing falsely in Court in collusion with PW1 Hem Singh. 10.4 PW4 Gurdass has stated that parties are known to him. He has stated that Sidhu Ram had died and Shakuntla is daughter of deceased Sidhu Ram. He has stated that defendant is residing in her in-laws house for the last 20-25 years. He has stated that in-laws house of defendant is situated at a distance of 8-10 K.m. He has stated that Shakuntla used to visit her parental house occasionally. He has stated that Shakuntla is not in possession of suit property and she did not cultivate the suit property. He has admitted that Jagdish is his real brother. He has stated that Jagdish used to perform the work of driver. He has also admitted that Khem Singh is brother-in-law of his brother. He has admitted that Khem Singh is real brother of Hem Singh. He has also admitted that Khem Singh and Jagdish are related to each other. He has stated that he does not know that Sidhu Ram has executed another Will. He has also admitted that Khem Singh is brother-in-law of his brother. He has admitted that Khem Singh is real brother of Hem Singh. He has also admitted that Khem Singh and Jagdish are related to each other. He has stated that he does not know that Sidhu Ram has executed another Will. 11.1 DW1 Shakuntla Devi has stated that Sidhu Ram was her father. She has stated that she has purchased suit property from her father for consideration amount of Rs. 7000/-. She has stated that sale deed is Ext.DW1/A. She has stated that marginal witnesses of sale deed were Jhabe Ram and Som Dev. She has stated that she has paid the consideration amount to her father before the sale deed. She has stated that her deceased father told him that his son used to consume wine and did not pay any maintenance to him. She has stated that her father told that he wanted to alienate the suit property to third person and thereafter she told her father that she herself would purchase the suit property. She has stated that contents of sale deed were read over to her deceased father and after admitting the contents of sale deed as correct her deceased father had signed the sale deed. She has stated that contents of sale deed were also read over to her deceased father by Sub Registrar and she has also stated that her deceased father admitted the contents of sale deed as correct before the Sub Registrar. She has stated that possession of suit property was delivered to her at the spot. She has stated that she has paid the consideration amount in presence of Gurdas. She has denied suggestion that she has executed the sale deed by way of fraud. She has also denied suggestion that she did not serve her deceased father since 1993. 11.2 DW2 Som Dev has stated that he was Up-Pardhan of Panchayat since 1993. He has stated that he is also called by the name of Dilu Ram. He has stated that both parties are known to him. He has stated that Shakuntla Devi is resident of his Panchayat. He has stated that he was familiar with deceased Sidhu Ram. He has stated that deceased Sidhu had executed sale deed in favour of Shakuntla Devi in the year 1993. He has stated that both parties are known to him. He has stated that Shakuntla Devi is resident of his Panchayat. He has stated that he was familiar with deceased Sidhu Ram. He has stated that deceased Sidhu had executed sale deed in favour of Shakuntla Devi in the year 1993. He has stated that he is marginal witness of sale deed Ext.DW1/A and his signatures in the sale deed are Ext.DW2/A in red encircle. He has stated that another witness was Jhabe Ram. He has stated that sale deed Ext.DW1/A was written by document writer at the instance of Sidhu Ram. He has stated that when sale deed Ext.DW1/A was written on that day Sub Registrar was not in his office. He has stated that at the time of execution of sale deed vendor was mentally sound and vendor was also physically fit. He has stated that sale deed Ext.DW1/A was written in his presence. He has stated that he inquired from Sidhu Ram as to why he has alienated the suit property. He has further stated that Sidhu Ram informed him that he was in need of money. He has stated that Sidhu Ram had marked his thumb impression on sale deed on dated 16.8.1993 and he has also himself signed on sale deed as marginal witness on dated 16.8.1993. He has stated that parties are not related to him. He has denied suggestion that he came along with Shakuntla Devi in order to commit fraud. He has denied suggestion that deceased Sidhu Ram did not intend to execute sale deed in favour of Shakuntla. 11.3 DW3 Tek Singh document writer Padhar has stated that he has brought the summoned record and he has stated that sale deed Ext.DW1/A is written by him. He has stated that he has written sale deed Ext.DW1/A at the instance of Sidhu Ram on dated 11.8.1993. He has stated that entries were made in the register at Sr. No. 649. He has stated that deceased Sidhu Ram has presented before him the document of five years average sale and copy of jamabandi. He has stated that deceased Sidhu Ram told him to prepare the sale deed in favour of Shakuntla. He has stated that entries were made in the register at Sr. No. 649. He has stated that deceased Sidhu Ram has presented before him the document of five years average sale and copy of jamabandi. He has stated that deceased Sidhu Ram told him to prepare the sale deed in favour of Shakuntla. He has stated that contents of sale deed were read over to the testator in presence of marginal witnesses and Sidhu Ram has admitted the contents of sale deed as correct and thereafter marked his thumb impression. He has stated that Sidhu Ram was mentally sound at the time of execution of sale deed. He has stated that sale deed was written at the instance of Sidhu Ram. He has denied suggestion that he did not explain the contents of sale deed Ext.DW1/A to Sidhu Ram. 11.4 DW4 Dalip Singh has stated that he is Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Kunnu. He has stated that parties are known to him. He has stated that Sidhu Ram was resident of his Panchayat. He has stated that Sidhu Ram had died. He has further stated that Sidhu Ram had executed the sale deed. He has also stated that deceased Sidhu Ram came to him personally and told him that he wanted to execute the sale deed in favour of his daughter Shakuntla. He has stated that he also appeared before the Sub Registrar and he signed Ext.DW1/A as identifier. He has stated that Sidhu Ram had admitted that he had alienated the suit property in favour of his daughter. He has stated that Sidhu Ram has also marked his thumb impression before the Sub Registrar after admitting the contents of sale deed as correct. Findings on substantial question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that no consideration amount was paid to deceased Sidhu and his thumb impression was obtained on the pretext that Will would be executed in favour of Shakuntla and on the pretext that Shakuntla would render service to deceased Sidhu Ram during his life and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused sale deed Ext.DW1.A placed on record. There is recital in sale deed that vendor had already received sale consideration amount. Court has carefully perused sale deed Ext.DW1.A placed on record. There is recital in sale deed that vendor had already received sale consideration amount. In view of the recital that vendor had received the sale consideration amount and in view of the fact that sale deed is proved by way of testimonies of marginal witnesses it is held that vendor had received the sale consideration amount earlier from the vendee prior to the execution of sale deed. 13. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that execution of sale deed is not proved on record is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused sale deed Ext.DW1/A placed on record. Marginal witnesses of sale deed Ext.DW1/A are Jhabe Ram and Som Dev. Som Dev marginal witness appeared in Court as DW2 and he has specifically stated that deceased Sidhu had executed the sale deed in favour of Shakuntla in his presence and he has stated in positive manner that contents of sale deed were read over and explained to testator Sidhu Ram. He has stated in positive manner that after admitting the contents of sale deed as correct Sidhu had marked his thumb impression on sale deed. Testimony of DW2 Som Dev is corroborated by DW3 Tek Chand who is document writer and DW3 Tek Chand has specifically stated that sale deed was written by him at the instance of testator Sidhu Ram. He has stated that sale deed is also entered in his register at Sr. No. 649. He has stated that contents of sale deed were read over to testator and testator had admitted the contents of sale deed as correct and thereafter marked his thumb impression. Testimony of DWs 2 and 3 are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of DW2 and DW3. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that DW2 and DW3 have hostile animus against the plaintiff at any point of time. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that in view of the testimony of PW3 Jhabe Ram it is proved on record that deceased Sidhu Ram did not execute any sale deed in favour of Shakuntla is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that in view of the testimony of PW3 Jhabe Ram it is proved on record that deceased Sidhu Ram did not execute any sale deed in favour of Shakuntla is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that Jhabe Ram is not independent witness and it is also proved on record that Jhabe Ram is related to Hem Raj PW1. Testimony of PW3 Jhabe Ram is not sufficient to rebut the testimonies of DW2 Som Dev, DW3 Tek Chand and DW4 Dalip Singh. DW2 Som Dev and DW3 Tek Chand have stated in positive manner that deceased Sidhu had executed the sale deed in favour of Shakuntla in their presence. It is also proved on record that thereafter sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar and it is also proved on record that before the Sub Registrar DW4 Dalip Singh who is Pardhan of Gram Panchayat identified testator and DW4 Dalip Singh has stated in positive manner that Sidhu had admitted the contents of sale deed as correct before the Sub Registrar and contents of sale deed were read over and explained to Sidhu Ram in his presence and Sidhu Ram had marked his thumb impression after admitting the contents of sale deed as correct before the Sub Registrar. Testimony of DW4 Dalip Singh is also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW4 Dalip Singh. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that DW4 Dalip Singh has hostile animus against the plaintiff at any point of time. Even certificate has been given by the Sub Registrar in discharge of his official duty that contents of sale deed were read over to the testator by Sub Registrar and Sub Registrar has also given certificate that testator has admitted the contents of sale deed as correct before him. Sub Registrar has given the certificate of execution of sale deed in discharge of his official duties and same is relevant fact under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence it is held that due execution of sale deed is proved on record in favour of Shakuntla Devi in present case. Appellants did not examine Sub Registrar in order to rebut certificate issued by Sub Registrar. 15. Hence it is held that due execution of sale deed is proved on record in favour of Shakuntla Devi in present case. Appellants did not examine Sub Registrar in order to rebut certificate issued by Sub Registrar. 15. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that as per record sale deed was executed on dated 11.8.1993 and same was registered on dated 16.8.1993 and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. DW2 Som Dev has stated in positive manner that when sale deed Ext.DW1/A was executed on dated 11.8.1993 at that time Sub Registrar was not available in office. Non-registration of sale deed on dated 11.8.1993 is satisfactory explained by Som Dev in his oral testimony when he appeared in the witness box as DW2. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW2 that Sub Registrar was not available in his office on dated 11.8.1993. Appellant did not examine the Sub Registrar in order to prove that Sub Registrar was present in office on dated 11.8.1993. Even as per Section 23 of Registration Act 1908 a document could be presented for registration within four months from the date of its execution. Hence it is held that document of sale deed Ext.DW1/A was executed strictly as per Section 23 of Registration Act 1908 in accordance with law. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that testator namely Sidhu was an old illiterate person and was weak from mind at the time of alleged sale deed and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Appellant did not examine any medical officer in order to prove that mental state of testator was weak at the time of execution of sale deed. There is no medical certificate on record in order to prove that mental state of testator was weak at the time of execution of sale deed. Plea of appellant that mental state of testator was weak at the time of execution of sale deed is rejected on concept of ipse dixit(Assertion made without proof). 17. There is no medical certificate on record in order to prove that mental state of testator was weak at the time of execution of sale deed. Plea of appellant that mental state of testator was weak at the time of execution of sale deed is rejected on concept of ipse dixit(Assertion made without proof). 17. Testimony of PW1 Hem Singh is not helpful to the appellant because Hem Singh was not present at the time of execution of sale deed before the document writer and Hem Raj was also not present when sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar. Testimony of PW2 Ravi Parkash is also not helpful to the appellant because Ravi Parkash has stated that he was posted as registration clerk in the year 1995 and present sale deed was registered on dated 16.8.1993. When sale deed was registered PW2 was not posted on the seat of Registration Clerk. Hence it is held that testimony of PW2 is also not helpful to the appellants. 18. Even testimony of PW4 Gurdas is also not helpful because PW4 Gurdas is not marginal witness of sale deed Ext.DW1/A and Gurdas was not present in the premises of Sub Registrar when sale deed Ext.DW1/A was executed. Hence it is held that testimony of PW4 is not helpful to the appellants. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that possession of suit property was not given to Shakuntla Devi and Shakuntla is not in possession of suit property and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused sale deed Ext.DW1/A. There is recital in sale deed that possession of suit property was delivered to vendee and vendor has himself admitted in sale deed Ext.DW1/A that he had delivered the possession of suit property to vendee. In view of admission by vendor that he had handed over the possession of suit property to vendee it is held that possession of suit property was delivered to vendee at the time of execution of sale deed placed on record. 20. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that appellants are entitled for the relief of injunction as claimed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 20. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that appellants are entitled for the relief of injunction as claimed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that Shakuntla became owner in possession of suit property on the basis of sale deed Ext.DW1/A placed on record and it is held that ownership title of suit property passed in favour of Shakuntla Devi when sale deed was executed in favour of Shakuntla Devi. It is well settled law that title passes in favour of vendee in immovable property when sale deed is executed and registered. (See AIR 1961 SC 1747 (Full Bench) titled Ram Saran Lal and others vs. Mst. Domini Kuer and others). 21. In present case appellants did not prove all ingredients of fraud as required under law. It is well settled law that no injunction can be granted against the true owner when it is proved on record that true owner is in settled possession of suit property. It is held that Shakuntla is in settled possession of suit property after execution of sale deed in her favour. Unfortunately in present case testimony of vendor could not be recorded by learned trial Court in order to prove the factum of fraud upon the vendor because vendor died on dated 19.9.1995 prior to recording oral evidence by learned trial Court. 22. In view of above stated facts cited supra substantial question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court is answered against the appellants. In view of above stated facts judgments and decree passed by learned trial Court and first Appellate Court are affirmed and appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.