The defendants have opposed the suit.
The trial companyrt on appreciation of materials on record held that the sale deed said to have been executed by Dharam Singh did number companyfer any right, title or interest on the defendants.
It is clear that when the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh, he was having sound state of mind.
Consequently, the suit was decreed.
The plaintiff filed a reply to the written statement companytending that the sale deed said to have been executed by Dharam Singh has been obtained by fraud and mis representation and hence, the said sale deed is number binding upon her.
After Banshi 162601 IST Reason Dhars death, her father Dharam Singh and her paternal uncle Mathura Prasad have succeeded to the said property and after the death of her father Dharam Singh, she is entitled for half share in the said property.
It is her case that Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.03.21 the property originally belonged to her grandfather Banshi Dhar.
The Sub Registrar, who had registered the documents was examined as DW 3.
They have numberhere stated in their statements that Dharam Singh was number in good state of mind at the time of the execution of the document.D 1 was attested by PW 2 and PW 3.
The appellant filed the suit O.S No.
In his evidence he stated that the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh after he had explained to the parties about companytents of the said deed.
60 of 2001 before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon.
The first Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt and allowed the appeal.
The second appeal filed by the appellant plaintiff was dismissed by the High Court.
1 is the son of Mathura Prasad.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties, we do number find any merit in this appeal.
It is companytended that Dharam Singh had executed a sale deed in respect of his fifty per cent share in the said property in favour of the first defendant.
196/1992 against Keshri Nandan and Mathura Prasad for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit scheduled property.
It cannot be held that the sale deed dated 11.07.1991 executed by Dharam Singh was obtained by fraud or by mis representation.
The defendants challenged the said decree by filing Civil Appeal No.
Mathura Prasad, the second defendant was the brother of Dharam Singh and Keshri Nandan respondent defendant No.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. Parties in this appeal are close relatives.
Krishna Devi, the appellant plaintiff is the daughter of Dharam Singh.
