JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013 passed in RA No. 293 of 2009 by the Principal District Judge, Hassan. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 is void and sought for cancellation of the said sale deed and also directing the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. The defendant got married to the plaintiff's son, Anand. Both, the defendant and her husband were cordial and led a happy married life for 6 months and she became pregnant. It is alleged that the plaintiff met with an accident and due to which she became bed ridden. At that time the defendant was asked to do the household work. The defendant neither took care of the plaintiff, nor attended the household work. The defendant was taken by her parents to their house for sometime. By that time the defendant's husband was running an autorikshaw at Bangalore, and came to his native place and on hearing that the defendant was taken away by her parents to their house, he went to his father-in-law's house and requested them to send his wife with him and with a proper advice to the defendant that she would attend the household work. But his request was turned down by the parents of the defendant. Subsequently, one Ningappa, mediated the issue and as the result, the defendant was taken to Bangalore to her husband's house. When the defendant was at Bangalore, the father and brother of the defendant pelted stones to the house of the plaintiff and caused damage. In this regard, a panchayat was held over and the defendant was taken again back to her parents' house. 6. The plaintiff's son i.e., defendant's husband got a job in KSRTC in the month of June, 1998 and he was posted at Sakleshpura depot. The defendant lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and her son and daughter. In this regard, a panchayat was held over and the defendant was taken again back to her parents' house. 6. The plaintiff's son i.e., defendant's husband got a job in KSRTC in the month of June, 1998 and he was posted at Sakleshpura depot. The defendant lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and her son and daughter. The plaintiff and his son were arrested on 09.04.2000 and her son was arrested on 11.04.2000. Both of them were sent to judicial custody. Subsequently they were released on bail, on 13.04.2000. After the release, when the plaintiff alone was at her house, on 23.05.2000, the defendant's father and her brother and relatives came and threatened the plaintiff that she must sign the document or face the dire consequences. She was taken to some government office forcibly and took some signatures there and they left the plaintiff near her house. During June 2000, the brothers of the defendant were ploughing the suit schedule property, when questioned, they informed that the plaintiff had sold 15 guntas of her land in favour of the defendant. Based upon verification in the office of the Sub Registrar, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant got executed a registered sale deed dated 23.05.2000 regarding the suit schedule property hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. Accordingly, he prays to decree the suit. 7. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff was the owner of the property in suit survey number and she sold a portion of said land, to the extent of 15 guntas, in favour of the defendant by receiving the consideration amount and executed a registered sale deed and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant, on the basis of the registered sale deed, got transferred khata of the said land in favour of her and the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, there is no cause of action arose to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 23.05.2000 has come in to existence as a result of fraud, coercion and without consideration? 2. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 23.05.2000 has come in to existence as a result of fraud, coercion and without consideration? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for declaration sought for? 3. Whether defendant proves that the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 is grnuine and supported by consideration? 4. To what relief plaintiff is entitled for? 5. What order or decree? 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case examined herself as PW.1. Though examined one witness, Yogesh as PW.2, he did not tender for cross- examination and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. The defendant examined herself as DW1 and marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the negative, issue No. 3 in the affirmative, and issue No. 5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.08.2009. 10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in OS No. 159 of 2000, preferred an appeal in RA No. 293 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Hassan. 11. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 (Ex.D1) has come into existence as a result of fraud, coercion and without consideration? 2. Whether defendant proves that the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 is executed by the plaintiff on her own violation and the same was supported by consideration amount? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and possession as sought in the plaint/ 4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below is proper, correct and in accordance with law, which requires any interference from the hands of this Court? 5. What order? 12. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, answered point Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and point No.5 as per the final order. 5. What order? 12. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, answered point Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and point No.5 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed, consequently the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 159 of 2000 dated 18.08.2009 was set aside and suit of the plaintiff was decreed declaring that the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff and any other persons claiming under her. 13. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013 passed in RA No. 293 of 2009, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 14. Heard Smt. S. Susheela, learned senior counsel for the defendant and learned counsel Shri. Shankar Reddy for the plaintiff. 15. Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff had executed a register sale deed in favour of the defendant and consideration amount was paid under the register sale deed and there is a recital in the register sale deed. She submits that any amount of oral evidence contradicting or vary the terms of the written instrument is inadmissible in evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. She also submitted that though the plaintiff has contended that the defendant has played fraud and coercion and got executed a registered sale deed. She submits that there is no specific pleading regarding fraud, coercion and undue influence as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and she submitted that there is a recital in regard to the payment of the sale consideration amount in the sale deed dated 23.05.2000. She also submitted that except the oral evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs have not examined any attesting witness to prove that the defendant had played a fraud, coercion and without consideration, executed the said sale deed. She submitted that the plaintiff examined one Yogesh as PW.2, who is said to be an attesting witness to the registered sale deed Ex.D1. PW.2 has not tendered himself for the cross-examination. His evidence has to be discarded. She submits that the first appellate court, without considering the said aspect, has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 16. She submitted that the plaintiff examined one Yogesh as PW.2, who is said to be an attesting witness to the registered sale deed Ex.D1. PW.2 has not tendered himself for the cross-examination. His evidence has to be discarded. She submits that the first appellate court, without considering the said aspect, has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 16. To buttress her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar and others, (2022) 18 SCC 489 , Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) through LRs. Goran vs. Jagan Devi and others in Civil Appeal No. 11795/2025 and SLP (C) No. 24821/2018 , Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhausali and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 9519/2019 , disposed of on 09.07.2020, Bishundeo Narain and another vs. Seogeni Rai and another, 1951 SCC Online SC 34, Vidyadhar vs. Manikrao and another, (1999) 3 SCC 573 and Kaliaperumal vs. Rajagopal and another, (2009) 4 SCC 193 . She also submits that though the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against the defendant for kidnapping the said private complaint came to be dismissed. She submitted that the defendant was acquitted by the Criminal Court in CC No. 518 of 2004 vide judgment dated 10.04.2013. Hence on these grounds she prays to allow the appeal. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant had played a fraud on the plaintiff and got executed a registered sale deed. The sale deed is the outcome of fraud, coercion and without consideration. He also submits that the defendant has no sources of income to pay the consideration amount. He submits that the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against the defendant and others for kidnapping and for threatening her. He submits that the first appellate court has considered the entire evidence on record and rightly passed the impugned judgment. The first appellate court considering the admission of the witness has rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 18. He submits that the first appellate court has considered the entire evidence on record and rightly passed the impugned judgment. The first appellate court considering the admission of the witness has rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 18. This Court vide order dated 01.03.2017, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the finding of the first appellate court on point No.1 that, the plaintiff has proved the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 (Ex.D1) has come into existence as a result of fraud, coercion and without consideration and consequentially allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is sustainable in law? ii. Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court on issue No.3, wherein the trial Court has held that the defendant has proved the sale deed dated 23.02.2000 is genuine and supported by consideration? Reg. Substantial questions of law: 19. The substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are taken together for common discussion, to avoid the repetition of facts. 20. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW1. She has deposed that, the defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff and she married to Anand, i.e., the son of the plaintiff and their marriage was performed on 15.06.1997 at 'Srinvasa Kalyana Mantapa', Hassan, and after their marriage, the defendant started to live with her husband in the house of their husband. Difference between the defendant and her husband arose and the defendant left her husband and started to reside in her parents' house. The husband of the defendant approached the parents of the defendant and requested her to advise her to attend the household work. The defendant did not join the company of the petitioner's son i.e., Anand. She has deposed that the supporters of the defendant’s father forced the plaintiff’s son Anand to execute a Karar (an agreement), took the signature of Anand, forcibly, on the same day at midnight, the brother of the defendant came to the house of the plaintiff, and took the defendant out of the house and later it was known that the defendant has taken to her parents' house. It is contended that Anand was appointed to the post of a mechanic in KSRTC bus in the month of June, 1998. It is contended that Anand was appointed to the post of a mechanic in KSRTC bus in the month of June, 1998. He was posted at Sakleshpura depot. When he was working at Sakleshpura, a complaint was registered against Anand and family members of the plaintiff and they were sent to the judicial custody. After 4 months, one day in the month of March 2000, Anand informed that the defendant has left Sakaleshapura and has gone to her parents' house. She has deposed that the plaintiff never executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant nor received the consideration amount as stated in the registered sale deed. The execution of the sale deed is obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence and the said sale deed dated 23.05.2000 is void document. Hence, prays to decree the suit and it is also contended that the private complaint was registered against the defendant. 21. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the registered sale deed dated 23.02.2000, which discloses that the plaintiff has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant, regarding the suit schedule property. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the order sheet in Crl.Misc.No. 1475/1999, which discloses that the defendant lodged a criminal case against the plaintiff and her son, Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the common order passed in Crl.Misc.No. 207/2000 and 215/2000 dated 16.06.2000 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, wherein the plaintiff and her son, husband of the defendant filed a bail application in Crl.Misc.No.215/2000 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application vide order dated 16.06.2000 and he was enlarged on bail. Ex.P4 is the RTC extract of land bearing Survey No.48, which discloses that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application vide order dated 16.06.2000 and he was enlarged on bail. Ex.P4 is the RTC extract of land bearing Survey No.48, which discloses that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Ex.P5 is the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C filed by one Ramesh and Meenakshi, Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the order sheet in Crl.Misc.No.207/2000, Ex.P7 is the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by the husband of the defendant in Crl.Misc.No.215/2000, Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the order sheet of Crl.Misc.No.215/2000, Ex.P9 is the registered sale deed dated 23.05.2000, when the plaintiff executed a sale deed regarding the suit property in favour of the defendant for consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-, Ex.P10 is the certified copy of the deposition of the defendant in C.C.No.436/2001. Ex.P11 is the order sheet in C.C.No.4376/2001, wherein PCO has submitted FIR and the accused were produced before the Magistrate and accused were remanded to the custody i.e., Anand was remanded to the custody. Ex.P12 is the certified copy of the first information report which discloses that the defendant has lodged a complaint against the defendant and others in crime No.321/1999, along with the copy of the complaint. Ex.P13 is the certified copy of complaint filed by the complainant, Ex.P14 is the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by the defendant and her son against the son of the plaintiff seeking for maintenance. 22. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it is suggested that the plaintiff had sold the suit schedule property for valuable consideration in favour of the defendant and executed the registered sale deed dated 23.05.2000 by receiving the sale consideration amount and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. It is also suggested that, the defendant with the financial support of her parents, paid the consideration amount. The said suggestions were denied by PW.1 and it is deposed that the defendant only played fraud, coercion and undue influence on PW.1. It is further suggested that the said sale deed was executed by the plaintiff for family and legal necessity. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1. 23. The plaintiff examined one witness as PW.2. The said suggestions were denied by PW.1 and it is deposed that the defendant only played fraud, coercion and undue influence on PW.1. It is further suggested that the said sale deed was executed by the plaintiff for family and legal necessity. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1. 23. The plaintiff examined one witness as PW.2. He has deposed that he knows the plaintiff the defendant and the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and he has stated that the defendant has not paid any consideration amount as stated in the registered sale deed. 24. PW2 did not tender for cross-examination. Hence, his evidence cannot be considered. 25. Defendant No.1 examined herself as DW1 and she deposed that the plaintiff is the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in suit Sy.No.48. She is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff as her marriage was performed with the son of the plaintiff and thereafter she was residing with her husband. The relationship between the defendant and her husband was strained. Hence, she started residing with her parents. That she purchased the suit property from the plaintiff for valid consideration and executed a registered sale deed dated 23.05.2000. The father of the defendant had financially helped her, in purchasing the suit property. The plaintiff put defendant in possession of the suit property. Since from the date of purchase, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. She has deposed that the defendant had filed a complaint against the plaintiff’s family members i.e., the son- Rangaswamy, daughter-Meenakshi, son-in-law- Ramesh and Anand and the police advised Anand to make arrangement to provide a separate house, for which he agreed to take the defendant to Sakaleshpura. She also deposed that the police arrested the plaintiff and her son Anand on 09.04.2000. 26. She denied that the defendant and her family members have forcibly obtained the signature of the plaintiff on the document dated 23.05.2000. She has deposed that the plaintiff voluntarily sold the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration and executed a registered sale deed dated 23.05.2000. It is also deposed that the plaintiff had filed a complaint against the defendant for playing fraud on the plaintiff. 27. During the cross-examination, it is suggested that defendant along with her family members, by playing fraud obtained the registered sale deed without paying consideration amount. It is also deposed that the plaintiff had filed a complaint against the defendant for playing fraud on the plaintiff. 27. During the cross-examination, it is suggested that defendant along with her family members, by playing fraud obtained the registered sale deed without paying consideration amount. The said suggestion was denied by DW-1 and it is also denied that defendant had no financial capacity to purchase the suit schedule property. It is contended that the father of the defendant helped the defendant on purchasing the suit schedule property and defendant to prove that the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed, produced the original sale deed marked, as Exhibit D-1. 28. From the perusal of the Exhibit D-1, it is clear that the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed regarding the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff received the consideration amount. 29. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, the plaintiff has taken a specific plea in the plaint that the defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was strained and defendant has lodged a complaint against the plaintiff, her son and others and the Police have arrested the plaintiff and her family members and later on, the plaintiff was enlarged on bail and the plaintiff contended that the family members of the defendant i.e., brother and father have threatened the plaintiff and obtained the signatures on the document. Further, the plaintiff, except examining herself as PW1, has neither produced any documents, nor examined any witness to prove alleged fraud. Though the plaintiff has examined a witness as PW2, he did not tender for cross examination. The first appellate court without considering said aspect held that the plaintiff proved the alleged fraud on her. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co. AIR 1976 S C 712, held that the fraud must be pleaded and proved and it cannot be presumed. The perusal of the records discloses that except pleading in the plaint and depositions in the plaintiff's cross examination, there is no evidence on record to show that the defendant obtained the said sale deed vide Ex.D1 by coercion and threatening the plaintiff. The perusal of the records discloses that except pleading in the plaint and depositions in the plaintiff's cross examination, there is no evidence on record to show that the defendant obtained the said sale deed vide Ex.D1 by coercion and threatening the plaintiff. The first appellate court, based on the ground that there was no cordial atmosphere between the plaintiff and the defendant, presumed that the defendant, by playing fraud against the plaintiff, had executed the said registered sale deed regarding the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 is the registered document. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act states as follows: “ 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement - When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from, its terms.” 30. Thus, any oral evidence contradicting the written agreement, has no evidential value in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the plaintiff has admitted regarding the execution of the said sale deed and also regarding the registration of the same. Though she has contended that the execution of ExD1 is made because of threat and coercion by the defendant, she has failed to prove so. The first appellate court without considering the said aspect proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 31. Further, the plaintiff also contended that the sale deed vide ExD1 is executed without paying the consideration to the plaintiff and therefore it is not a valid agreement and thus, sought for the cancelation of the said sale deed dated 23.05.2000. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through LRs. and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 3310 , by referring to its judgment in Vidyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573 , held in para 15.3 as follows: “In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the Plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale Deed. (1999) 3 SCC 573 , held in para 15.3 as follows: “In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the Plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed.” Further, in para 16, it has held as follows: “The present suit filed by the Plaintiffs is clearly an abuse of the process of the court, and bereft of any merit.” 32. Admittedly, the recitals of the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 clearly discloses that the suit property was sold for Rs. 1,05,000/- and the said sale deed was executed after receiving the said sale consideration amount in the presence of the witness to the said sale deed. Even if the averments of the Plaintiff is taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale Deed as per the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dahiben (referred supra). Thus, the first appellate court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. The first appellate court was not justified in overturning the judgment of the trial Court. 33. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial questions of law in the negative. 34. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following ORDER: i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is set aside. iii. The judgment and decree passed by the trail court is restored. iv. Pending IAs, if any, disposed of accordingly.