JUDGMENT : (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.56 of 2010 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the Additional Munsif-I, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 67 of 1998 dated 07.04.2010 and dismissed the appeal. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant-plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 67 of 1998 in the court of Munsif, Ranchi with the prayer for declaration that sale deed no. 6295 dated 24.06.1986 executed by plaintiff in favour of the defendant, is null and void. The plaintiff further sought declaration of her title over the suit land as also declaration of her possession. The plaintiff made an alternative prayer that if during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff is found to be not in possession then a decree for delivery of possession be also passed in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff lastly prayed for cost of the suit and other reliefs, if any. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant jointly through registered sale deeds bearing nos. 10065 and 10066 both dated 18.12.1969, from the rightful owner and this is also the admitted case of the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was purchased by making the payment from the own stock and fund of the plaintiff but the husband of the defendant being the elder brother of the husband of the plaintiff and was also the head of the family, managed to figure the name of his wife in the said registered sale deed as a co-purchaser, even though the defendant did not pay any amount of consideration money and the entire consideration money was paid by the husband of the plaintiff. After purchase of the suit land, the husband of the plaintiff died. The plaintiff filed petition for mutation on the basis of registered sale deed and the mutation was allowed both in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant, by entering the names of the two persons in Register-II. After purchase of the suit land, the husband of the plaintiff died. The plaintiff filed petition for mutation on the basis of registered sale deed and the mutation was allowed both in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant, by entering the names of the two persons in Register-II. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant brought the plaintiff to the Ranchi Registry Office for execution of a deed of relinquishment by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff but the husband of the defendant managed to execute two deeds on the same day, one deed with respect to deed of the same land by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and another deed with respect to the deed of Adhbatayidar. The plaintiff pleaded that she being an illiterate person was not able to understand the consequence of the deed, at the time of execution of the same. The plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit land. The sale deed no. 6295 does not contain description of the property sold. The plaintiff came to know about the execution of the said sale deed no. 6295 when a petition for mutation was filed by the defendant and the notice of the same was served upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed her objection. The plaintiff next pleaded that the deed of sale and the deed of Adhbatayidar was not acted upon. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit, for the said reliefs, as indicated above. 5. In her written statement, the defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. It was further pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff had full knowledge about the registered sale deed of the year 1969 and 1986. The defendant next pleaded that the Title Suit No.51 of 1997 is pending in the court of Munsif, Ranchi in which one Biru Singh is claiming the suit land. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff has filed the suit at the instance of her son-in-law and the defendant paid the entire consideration amount of the land in the year 1969. The elder brother of the plaintiff was present at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit land. 6. The elder brother of the plaintiff was present at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit land. 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following seven issues:- (I) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (II) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? (III) Whether the suit is barred by limitation and adverse possession? (IV) Whether the sale deed no. 6295 dated 24.06.1986 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is valid? (V) Whether the defendant has acquired valid title over the suit property by virtue of sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, is a valid document? (VI) Whether plaintiff or defendant has acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit property? (VII) To what other relief or reliefs if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined altogether nine witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 and Ext.2. On the other hand from the side of the defendant, the defendant examined altogether three witnesses and also proved the documents which has been marked Ext. A to B/1. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. IV, V and VI together and considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fraud in execution of the sale deed bearing no. 6295 and went on to hold on the basis of the evidence in the record that the sale deed no. 6295 dated 24.06.1986, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is a valid document and it has conferred a valid right, title and interest in respect of the suit land upon the defendant and decided the issue nos. IV, V and VI against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. The learned trial court next took up issue no. III and considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that as the plaintiff has been in permissive possession of the suit land till 1997 as Adhbatayidar on the basis of the deed of Adhbatayidar executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff hence, the suit is barred by limitation and decided the issue no. III and considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that as the plaintiff has been in permissive possession of the suit land till 1997 as Adhbatayidar on the basis of the deed of Adhbatayidar executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff hence, the suit is barred by limitation and decided the issue no. III in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The learned trial court next took up issue nos. I and II together and after considering the outcome of the main issues came to the conclusion that the suit as framed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the plaintiff has no valid cause of action. Lastly the learned trial court took up issue no. VII and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as sought for and dismissed the suit on contest. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Munsif-I, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 67 of 1998 dated 07.04.2010, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.56 of 2010 in the court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi. 10. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi made re-appreciation of the evidence in the record and relying upon the various judicial pronouncements; observed that Article 59 of the Limitation Act is applicable in a suit for avoidance of cancellation of voidable instrument. The learned first appellate court considered that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the brother of the executant-plaintiff was present. In the recital of the sale deed it has been mentioned that the consideration money was paid to the plaintiff-appellant. The learned first appellate court also considered the presumption that once execution of a sale deed is proved, the recital of payment of consideration are prima facie proof of the same, against the executants or any person claiming under the executant of the sale deed and considering the fact that sale deed was a registered one, went on to hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fraud and after independent appreciation of the evidence in the record answered the issue nos. III, IV and V against the plaintiff. The learned first appellate court next took up issue no. III, IV and V against the plaintiff. The learned first appellate court next took up issue no. II and held that the suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action for the suit. The learned first appellate court then took up issue no. I and held that the suit as framed is not maintainable and lastly the learned first appellate court took up the issue nos. VI and VII and held that since the plaintiff has not got any valid right, title and interest over the suit land so the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below have failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 8 and D.W.3. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appreciation of the evidence made by both the courts below is not proper. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that fraud is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt even in a civil proceeding as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. M/s Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co. reported in AIR 1976 SC 712 paragraph-7 of which reads as under:- “7. The High Court has carefully considered the various circumstances relied upon by the appellant and has held that they are not at all conclusive to prove the case of fraud. It is well settled that fraud like any other charge of a criminal offence whether made in civil or criminal proceedings, must be established beyond reasonabe doubt: per Lord Atkin in A. L. N. Narayanan Chettyar v. Official Assignee, High Court Rangoon, AIR 1941 PC 93 . However suspicious may be the circumstances, however strange the coincidences, and however grave the doubts, suspicion alone can never take the place of proof. However suspicious may be the circumstances, however strange the coincidences, and however grave the doubts, suspicion alone can never take the place of proof. In our normal life we are sometimes faced with unexplainable phenomenon and strange coincidences, for, as it is said, truth is stranger than fiction. In these circumstances, therefore, going through the judgment of the High Court we are satisfied that the appellant has not been able to make out a case of fraud as found by the High Court. As such the High Court was fully justified in negativing the plea of fraud and in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that Ext. A/1 is the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant which is a registered sale deed. P.W.6 has stated that both the parties have jointly purchased the land and P.W.8 is the plaintiff herself. The plaintiff who was examined as P.W.8 could not withstand the cross-examination. The witnesses of the plaintiff deposed contrary to the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff alone contributed for purchasing of the suit land in the year 1969; as the witnesses of the plaintiff stated that both the plaintiff and the defendant purchased the suit land. The plaintiff could not put forth any evidence to establish fraud having been committed in execution of the sale deed marked Ext. A/1. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below after appreciation of the evidence in the record that the plaintiff has failed to establish any fraud being practiced in execution and registration of the sale deed which has been marked Ext. A/1. 15. Once the execution of the sale deed is accepted as a valid document created by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant so obviously the limitation for filing the suit will start from the date of execution of the sale deed itself which was on 24.06.1986 whereas the suit was filed in the year 1998. Under such circumstances, this Court also does not find any illegality in the finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below that the suit is barred by limitation. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court also does not find any illegality in the finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below that the suit is barred by limitation. 16. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 17. Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 18. Let the copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.