Allegation Without Evidence Is No Ground to Cancel a Decree – P&H HC Dismisses Appeal on Oral Exchange of Land

“No evidence of mental incapacity or fraud; plaintiffs failed to prove their case or summon key witness”— In a judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Regular Second Appeal, filed by Smt. Phulli Devi and others against Smt. Munni Devi & Ors., challenging the dismissal of their suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate a 1991 civil court decree which had confirmed an oral mutual exchange of land and a house between their predecessor, Rugha Ram, and one Sahab Ram.

Justice Harkesh Manuja, refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, held that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud or illegal deprivation, and significantly, never challenged the 1991 decree during the lifetime of Rugha Ram. The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

“Suit Based on Allegations of Fraud Must Be Proved With Clear Evidence, Not Mere Assertions”

The appellants—legal heirs of Rugha Ram—filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, seeking to declare a 1991 judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 492 of 1991 as null, void, and illegal, claiming that Rugha Ram, being mentally weak, was misled into agreeing to a mutual oral exchange of property.

As per the decree, land measuring 19 kanals 2 marlas was transferred to Sahab Singh, and a house within the lal lakir (abadi deh) was purportedly transferred to Rugha Ram. The plaintiffs alleged that Sahab Singh (predecessor of the defendants) concealed facts and misrepresented the location and nature of the property.

It was also pleaded that Rugha Ram allowed one Mani Ram to occupy the house as a licensee, but after his death, Mani Ram refused to vacate it. The plaintiffs contended that the decree of 1991 was obtained through fraud.

Both the Trial Court (17.12.2015) and the First Appellate Court (16.03.2021) dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal.

No Evidence of Mental Incapacity or Fraud

Justice Harkesh Manuja categorically held that the plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their allegation of fraud:

“There is no evidence available on record at all regarding this material aspect, and as such the fraud if any upon Raghu Ram was never proved on record.” [Para 7]

Further, the Court noted that Rugha Ram never challenged the 1991 decree during his lifetime, which strongly undermined the plaintiffs’ case.

Admission of Possession and Failure to Implead Key Party

Interestingly, the plaintiffs admitted that Rugha Ram himself had handed over possession of the exchanged house to Mani Ram as a licensee, yet:

“The said Mani Ram was neither impleaded as a defendant in the suit nor even any effort was made by the plaintiffs to summon him as witness.” [Para 8]

The Court observed that this omission struck at the root of the plaintiffs’ case, especially when their entire claim hinged on whether possession was ever transferred.

Plaintiffs Must Stand on Their Own Legs

The Court reinforced the settled principle that plaintiffs must prove their own case, not rely on weaknesses in the defendant’s case:

“The plaintiffs, who were to stand on their own legs to prove their case, failed to establish the same.” [Para 8]

No Perversity or Misreading in Lower Court Judgments

Justice Manuja found that both the Trial and Appellate Courts had properly appreciated pleadings and evidence, and no illegality or perversity could be pointed out:

“Finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings… there being no misreading thereof… the impugned judgments and decrees call for no interference.” [Para 9]

Dismissing the appeal, the Court reaffirmed that serious allegations such as fraud must be proven with cogent evidence. In the absence of any proof of deception or mental incapacity, and in view of the plaintiffs’ own admission that the house was handed over and occupied, the Court concluded:

“The present appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.” [Para 9]

This judgment serves as a firm reminder that litigation challenging long-standing decrees must be backed by concrete proof, especially when claims are based on fraud or mental incapacity.

Date of Decision: 29 July 2025