Sale Deed Cancelled Due to Fraudulent Thumb Impressions: Court Upholds Ruling on Rent Arrears

The High Court dismissed the second civil appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the cancellation of the sale deed and the plaintiff's entitlement to arrears of rent. The court found the sale deed to be fraudulent, supported by expert testimony that the thumb impressions did not match the plaintiff's. Emphasizing the significance of evidence-based findings, the court upheld the lower courts' conclusions, deeming them well-founded and not warranting revision.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Second civil appeal against judgment and decree for cancellation of sale deed.
- Question of law on the findings recorded by the lower courts being perverse and illegal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Second Civil Appeal Against Judgment and Decree for Cancellation of Sale Deed
The case involved a dispute over a sale deed of a house where the plaintiff alleged that the sale deed was fraudulent and sought its cancellation. The plaintiff contended that he never sold the house to the defendant and that the sale deed was obtained through fraud. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the sale deed was valid and that he became the owner of the house after its execution. The lower court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the cancellation of the disputed sale deed, supporting the plaintiff's claim that the sale deed was forged and not executed by him. The plaintiff presented expert testimony and evidence to prove that the thumb impressions on the disputed sale deed did not match his own. The court agreed with the plaintiff's expert witness, concluding that the sale deeds were executed by an imposter and were void and not binding on the plaintiff. The court also emphasized that fraud can be inferred from the circumstances of the case and the evidence on record.

Issue 2: Question of Law on Findings Recorded by Lower Courts
The question of law raised in the second civil appeal pertained to whether the findings of the lower courts were perverse and illegal. The court upheld the concurrent findings of fact by both lower courts that the impugned sale deed was null and void. It was established that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was entitled to arrears of rent. The court found that the findings of fact were based on the evidence on record and did not warrant interference. Citing relevant Supreme Court rulings, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the findings of the lower courts were well-founded and did not require revision.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the second civil appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the cancellation of the sale deed and the entitlement of the plaintiff to arrears of rent. The judgment highlighted the importance of expert testimony in proving fraud and upheld the principle that findings of fact based on evidence are not to be interfered with unless necessary.

---