MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA J.

C.M. No.13364-C of 2017 and RSA No. 5057 of 2017

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad (for short ‘the trial Court’) decreeing the Civil Suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff {for short ‘the plaintiff’ (since deceased and now represented through her LRs)} against the appellant-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) for seeking the decree for declaration to the effect that she was the owner in possession of the suit land and the relinquishment deed dated 22.12.2008 and the mutation, as got sanctioned by the defendant, were void as well as by the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 handed down by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad (for short ‘the lower Appellate Court’) whereby the appeal filed by him (defendant) to assail the above-said judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014 has been dismissed, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the afore-said suit while averring that the defendant was her nephew and he fraudulently got the above-mentioned relinquishment deed executed by her in his favour in respect of the suit land, on the pretext of facilitating the grant of old age pension to her. The defendant filed his written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff therein, inter-alia, on the ground that she (plaintiff) had voluntarily executed the said relinquishment deed in his favour qua her share in the land inherited by her from her father. The trial Court put the parties to the trial by framing the issues. After appreciating and evaluating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, as led by both the parties on the record in support of their respective contentions and hearing their learned counsel, the trial Court decreed the suit vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014. The defendant filed an appeal to challenge the afore-said judgment and decree but the same has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant-defendant has also moved the application bearing CM No.13364-C of 2014 under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC for seeking permission to lead additional evidence by way of producing the copies of the relinquishment-deed dated 19.12.2008, General Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2008, civil suit dated 30.09.2010, written statement dated 09.03.2011 and written statement dated 07.01.2011, on the record.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant in the present appeal as well as on the above-mentioned application and have also perused the file carefully.

5. Before adverting to the discussion on the merits of the appeal, this Court deems it expedient and appropriate to decide the afore-said application moved by the applicant-defendant under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC. It is worth-while to mention here that the above-said provision is no more a part of the Statute Book as the same stands deleted w.e.f. 01.07.2002. Even otherwise, all the afore-mentioned documents were, explicitly, in existence even at the time of the filing of the said civil suit on 10.08.2011. The applicant-defendant has pleaded that though these documents had been handed over to the counsel engaged for representing him before the trial Court but inadvertently, the same could not be tendered in the evidence. However, this plea does not hold much water in view of the fact that it has specifically been mentioned by the lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2017 that the defendant had moved an application there also for seeking permission to lead additional evidence by producing the sale deed dated 27.09.1993, sale deed dated 28.11.2002, complaint addressed to the SHO, the application under RTI Act and reply to the same, mutation No.451, copies of the School Certificates, death certificate of Phool Singh, missing certificate and copy of the relinquishment deed dated 20.09.2013, on the record. Thus, it is explicit that the documents, as now sought to be produced by the defendant in his additional evidence, had not been included in that application. He has not come forward with any fair, candid and plausible explanation for the above- -said omission on his part and rather, in the present application, he has not even disclosed the factum of his having moved the afore-mentioned application before the said Court and all these facts belie his above- -discussed plea. Resultantly, this application stands dismissed accordingly.

6. Now coming to the merits of the appeal, learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the plaintiff had executed the said relinquishment deed in respect of the suit land, in favour of the defendant out of her own sweet will and volition and moreover, she has not led any cogent evidence on the record to prove the factum of the alleged fraud having been committed by the defendant in getting the said deed executed and therefore, both the impugned judgments and decrees are not legally sustainable and deserve to be set aside. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the observations as made by the Hon'ble Supreme in Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal No.4702 of 2004 decided on 07.01.2014) .

7. However, the afore-raised contentions are devoid of any merit because concededly, the plaintiff is the real paternal aunt, i.e the sister of the father, of the defendant and after her marriage, she had been residing in Village Biranundi, District Greater Noida. Her legal representatives, as impleaded in this appeal, happen to be her sons and daughter. It also goes undisputed between the parties that the plaintiff was an illiterate lady and that besides the defendant, there were other children of her brothers and that at the time of the alleged execution of the relinquishment deed in question, none of her own children or any other member from her parental family, except the defendant, had accompanied her to the office of the competent authority. In the normal course of events, it seems highly improbable that the plaintiff would have relinquished all her rights in the suit land in favour of only one of the children of her brothers, i.e the defendant, while depriving her own children as well as the children of her other brothers from having any right in the same and that too, specially in the circumstances when she was not residing with him and thus, he was not having any occasion to serve her.

8. In Union of India's case (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the plaintiff has to succeed only on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the case set up by the defendant. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the both the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff was an aged and illiterate lady. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, none of her family members, except the defendant, had accompanied her at the time of the alleged execution of the relinquishment deed in question in his (defendant's) favour, to the exclusion of her own children and all other members of her parental family. These facts, in themselves, do suffice to substantiate the averments of the plaintiff even without looking into and considering any weakness in the case of the defendant.

9. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned judgments and decrees as passed by both the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity and therefore, the same are herby affirmed and upheld.

10. Resultantly, the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.