JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. dated 11.10.2002, passed in Civil Appeal No.04 of 2002. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), has filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative suit for possession. The plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 8.3.1994 to the extent of 9/62 shares measuring 0-5 biswas out of the land comprised in khata khatauni No. 645/962, khasra No. 3377, situated in Phati Bashishat, Kothi Jagatsukh, Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). According to the plaintiff, sale deed dated 8.3.1994 was got executed from him by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. He had litigation for about 15 years with one Manu, resident of Village Chajoga, Phati Bashishat, Kothi Jagatsukh in respect of land measuring 3-2 bighas, comprised in Kh. No. 3377 which was granted to him in nautor on 28.3.1977. The plaintiff engaged defendant No. 2 as his counsel. Defendant No. 2 procured his signatures on some blank judicial papers on the pretext that the judicial papers were required for the purpose of moving application in the Court. The plaintiff signed the same. He is an illiterate person. Defendant No. 2 having exercised sway, influence and pressure over the plaintiff by taking undue advantage, fraudulently got a sale deed dated 8.3.1994 executed and registered from him in favour of defendant No. 1, without his knowledge and consent. Neither the sale consideration was paid to him nor the possession of the suit land stood delivered to defendant No. 1. He was simply asked to say “Yes” to the questions put to him by the authorities including the Sub Registrar, Kullu. The defendants got executed mutation No. 2999 in respect of the suit land. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 2 has admitted that he was counsel of the plaintiff in a long drawn litigation with Manu. It has been denied that during the course of the litigation, defendant No. 2 had procured signatures of the plaintiff on blank judicial papers. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 2 has admitted that he was counsel of the plaintiff in a long drawn litigation with Manu. It has been denied that during the course of the litigation, defendant No. 2 had procured signatures of the plaintiff on blank judicial papers. It was also denied that defendant No. 2 being his counsel was having any sort of pressure or influence over the plaintiff and that by taking undue advantage of his position, had got executed and registered sale deed dated 8.3.1994 in favour of defendant No.1 by playing fraud. The plaintiff has executed the registered sale deed dated 8.3.1994 in favour of defendant No.1. It was scribed on the request of plaintiff in the presence of marginal witnesses and thereafter the contents were read over and explained to the plaintiff. The plaintiff after admitting the contents of the sale deed to be correct put his signatures and thereafter the marginal witnesses and scribe put their signatures on the sale deed. The sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar, Kullu. The Sub Registrar, Kullu again read over the contents of the sale deed to the plaintiff and plaintiff admitted them to be correct. Thereafter, the sale deed was registered. The plaintiff has also handed over a duly sworn affidavit to the patwari wherein he had stated his no objection in case mutation was attested on the basis of the sale deed in his absence. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge, Manali, framed the issues. The learned Sub Judge, Manali, dismissed the suit on 14.11.2000. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kullu. The learned District Judge, Kullu, dismissed the appeal on 11.10.2002. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on all the substantial question of law filed alongwith the grounds of appeal on 22.11.2002: “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sale deed Ext. D-1 which was got executed by defendant No. 2 who was advocate of the appellant in favour of his father for a paltry consideration of Rs. 16,000/- was vitiated as a result of misrepresentation, fraud and the findings of the District Judge are based on mis-reading and misconstruction of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ext. D-1 and being perverse are liable to be set aside? 16,000/- was vitiated as a result of misrepresentation, fraud and the findings of the District Judge are based on mis-reading and misconstruction of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ext. D-1 and being perverse are liable to be set aside? 2. Whether in view of the relationship of lawyer and client between the defendant No. 2 and the appellant and the fiduciary relationship between the parties an inference of misrepresentation, fraud, was raised and the sale transaction Ext. D-1 is vitiated and liable to be set aside? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff was within limitation from the date of discovery of fraud and the evidence to the contrary are not sustainable? 4. Whether particulars of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence had been pleaded and the said plea could be ignored for lack of particulars without calling upon the plaintiff to furnish full and better particulars if any, pleaded in view of the relationship between the parties?” 6. Since all the substantial questions of law are inter-connected, hence are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of evidence. 7. Mr. K.D.Sood, Sr. Advocate, for the appellant has vehemently argued that the sale deed Ext. D-1 was vitiated as a result of misrepresentation and fraud. According to him, defendant No. 2 has taken undue advantage of the fiduciary relationship between the parties. He then contended that both the courts below have come to the wrong conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. He lastly contended that the courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. Sh. Jai Singh, PW-1 has brought the record of case No. 1/1985 alongwith the Power of Attorney. He has proved certified copy of the Power of Attorney Ext. PW-1/B and plaint Ext. PW-1/C and also proved the POA filed in Civil Suit No. 181 of 1993 vide Ext. PW-1/D. 10. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-2. According to him, the disputed land was given to him by way of nautor measuring 3-2 bighas. It was situated in Phati Bashishat. He knew defendant No. 2. He was his advocate for 15-16 years. PW-1/C and also proved the POA filed in Civil Suit No. 181 of 1993 vide Ext. PW-1/D. 10. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-2. According to him, the disputed land was given to him by way of nautor measuring 3-2 bighas. It was situated in Phati Bashishat. He knew defendant No. 2. He was his advocate for 15-16 years. He has never sold the land to defendants. The sale deed was fraudulent. He came to know about it only last year when the notices of mutation were addressed to him. Earlier, the mutation was attested but was cancelled. He was in possession of the suit land. His litigation was pending before the Collector, Civil Court and Tehsildar. He presented himself before the Tehsildar at the instance of defendant No. 2. He has not read over the contents of any documents and he was under this impression that he was getting his work done. He has never received any consideration amount of sale deed. He did not know the marginal witnesses. He has never sold the land. He was never in need of money. The defendant No. 2 who was his counsel got his signatures on documents without reading the contents of the same. He is illiterate. He knew only how to put his signatures. In his crossexamination, he stated that he was working as tailor for the last 40-45 years. Jindu Ram was also working as tailor at Manali. He has entered into litigation with one Mr. Manu Ram. Initially, Sh. S.C.Sharma, was his Advocate. He was never involved in any litigation except Civil Suit No. 181 of 1993. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he has got the revenue papers including average sale from the Patwari. Volunteered that he has got them at the instance of defendant No. 2. He has admitted his signatures in red circle. Volunteered that he has put the signatures at the instance of defendant No. 2. 11. Sh. Jindu Ram, PW-3 stated that he has seen the disputed land. It was in possession of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was working as tailor at Manali. 12. Sh. P.C.Thakur, DW-1 stated that the land was situated in Phatti Bashishat. He knew the plaintiff. He had come to him on 7.3.1994 at Court Complex, Kullu stating that he wanted to sell 5 biswas to Nanak Chand. It was in possession of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was working as tailor at Manali. 12. Sh. P.C.Thakur, DW-1 stated that the land was situated in Phatti Bashishat. He knew the plaintiff. He had come to him on 7.3.1994 at Court Complex, Kullu stating that he wanted to sell 5 biswas to Nanak Chand. He had brought the copy of jamabandi and average sale. However, Nanak Chand told him later on that he could only pay him Rs. 10,000/- and rest of the money would be paid later on. Plaintiff told him that he was in dire need of money. He made offer to the plaintiff to buy his 0-5-0 bighas of land for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. The defendant No. 2 was minor at that time. He paid a sum of Rs. 16,000/- to the plaintiff on 8.3.1994 and the possession of the suit land was also handed over to him. The sale deed was scribed by Tula Singh i.e. Ext. D-1, at the instance of plaintiff. It was scribed in the presence of Kaula Ram Nambardar and Jeet Ram. The contents were read over to him. He put his signatures on Ext. D-1 after admitting the same to be correct. Thereafter, it was signed by the marginal witnesses. Tula Ram also signed the same and put his seal. The sale deed was produced for registration before the Sub Registrar, Kullu. The contents of Ext. D-1 were read over in presence of marginal witnesses to the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted the contents to be true and thereafter the same was registered. The plaintiff has also put his signatures before the Sub Registrar in the presence of marginal witnesses. The marginal witnesses also put the signatures after the plaintiff has put his signatures. The plaintiff has also sworn in an affidavit which was duly notarized by Ashok Marwah. 13. Sh. Jeet Ram, DW-2 has identified signatures on Ext. D-1 dated 8.3.1994. It was scribed by Tula Ram at the instance of the plaintiff. It was written in his presence and also in the presence of Kaula Ram. The contents were explained by Tula Ram to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff has put his signatures. He and Kaula Ram put their signatures as marginal witnesses. Thereafter, it was produced before the Sub Registrar. The contents of Ext. It was written in his presence and also in the presence of Kaula Ram. The contents were explained by Tula Ram to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff has put his signatures. He and Kaula Ram put their signatures as marginal witnesses. Thereafter, it was produced before the Sub Registrar. The contents of Ext. D-1 were read over by the Tehsildar to plaintiff and the plaintiff admitted the same to be correct and thereafter the Sub Registrar made the endorsement Ext. DW-1/A. On the endorsement also, plaintiff has put his signatures. He also put his signatures as marginal witnesses. 14. Sh. Tula Ram, DW-3 deposed that he at the instance of plaintiff and in the presence of Kaula Ram and Jeet Ram has scribed Ext. D-1. The contents of the same were read over and explained to the plaintiff. He put his signatures after understanding the contents to be true in the presence of Kaula Ram and Jeet Ram. Thereafter, the marginal witnesses put their signatures. 15. Sh. Ashok Marwah, DW-4 has notorized the affidavit dated 8.3.1994 and was registered at Sr. No. 1279 dated 8.3.1994. The copy of the register is Ext. DW-4/A. 16. Sh. Madan Singh, DW-5 deposed that he was working as Tehsildar w.e.f. 1987 to 1994. He retired in 1999. The sale deed Ext. D-1 was produced before him by the plaintiff on 8.3.1994. He has explained the contents of the sale deed to the plaintiff. He admitted the same to be correct. He made the endorsement on the sale deed vide Ext. DW-1/A. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the marginal witnesses have put their signatures on the same. 17. What emerges from the appraisal of the statements is that the sale deed Ext. D-1 was scribed by Tula Ram, the contents of the same were read over and explained by Tula Ram. The plainhtiff after understanding the same put his signatures. Thereafter, the marginal witnesses DW-2 Jeet Ram and Kaula Ram appended their signatures. Ext. D-1 was produced before DW-5 Sh. Madan Singh, Sub Registrar. He explained the contents of the sale deed to him. The plaintiff after admitting the contents to be true put his signatures. He made the endorsement Ext. DW-1/A. Thereafter, the plaintiff put his signatures followed by signatures of marginal witnesses. 18. Sh. Ext. D-1 was produced before DW-5 Sh. Madan Singh, Sub Registrar. He explained the contents of the sale deed to him. The plaintiff after admitting the contents to be true put his signatures. He made the endorsement Ext. DW-1/A. Thereafter, the plaintiff put his signatures followed by signatures of marginal witnesses. 18. Sh. K.D.Sood, learned Senior Advocate, has argued that defendant No. 2 was the counsel of plaintiff and he has taken advantage of the fiduciary relationship. The defendant No. 2 was the counsel of plaintiff in the litigation of plaintiff with one Sh. Manu. The litigation has come to an end on 3.3.1994 and the sale deed is dated 8.3.1994. The plaintiff has already obtained the revenue papers including the average sale price. These documents have been obtained by him only for the purpose of sale deed. The Court has already noticed that Ext. D-1 was scribed by Tula Ram. He has explained the contents of the same to plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff has put his signatures followed by the marginal witnesses. The sale deed was produced before the Sub Registrar, Kullu. He has also explained the contents of the same to him. DW-5 Madan Singh has made the endorsement and the plaintiff has signed the same followed by marginal witnesses. 19. According to the plaintiff, his signatures were obtained fraudulently by defendant No. 2 on blank judicial papers. However, the fact of the matter is that Ext. D-1 is on non-judicial papers. The plaintiff has also executed affidavit which was notorized by DW-4 Ashok Marwah and was registered at Sr. No. 1279 dated 8.3.1994 itself. The plaintiff was in litigation earlier also and he knew the difference between civil suit and the revenue court. He knew the purpose for which he had gone voluntarily to the Sub Registrar for the purpose of registration. His version cannot be believed that he only said “Yes” without understanding the implications of his admission. The plaintiff claimed himself to be illiterate but signed Ext. D-1 sale deed and identified his signatures on the same. 20. Sh. Tula Ram, DW-3 has also stated that the plaintiff has put his signatures on Ext. DW-3/A and Ext. DW-3/B, the copies of the extract register. The possibility of the documents being fraudulently prepared is also not ruled out in view of Ext. DW-3/A and DW-3/B. 21. It has come in the statement of Sh. 20. Sh. Tula Ram, DW-3 has also stated that the plaintiff has put his signatures on Ext. DW-3/A and Ext. DW-3/B, the copies of the extract register. The possibility of the documents being fraudulently prepared is also not ruled out in view of Ext. DW-3/A and DW-3/B. 21. It has come in the statement of Sh. P.C.Thakur, DW-1 that the possession of the suit land was also handed over by the plaintiff. The suit was to be filed within three years after the accrual of the cause of action. There is sufficient material on record to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff knew about the sale deed. Now, as far as the question of limitation is concerned, the plaintiff himself has produced Ext. P-2 copy of mutation No. 2999. According to it, the mutation proceedings were initially held on 13.6.1995 and thereafter on 31.7.1995 and when both the parties were absent and thereafter proceedings were adjourned to 25.8.1995, on which date, the plaintiff was present but defendants were not present. The suit has been filed on 21.12.1999. Moreover, the plaintiff has also stated in his examination-in-chief that he had raised objection before the revenue officials at the time of attestation of mutation and during his cross-examination, he testified that about 15-20 days prior to his making objection before the revenue officials, he had come to know that defendants have got executed from him a sale deed. Thus, he had the knowledge even from 8.3.1994. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 22. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.