“6.1 ........... In the instant case, the appellant in the written statement has only alleged that the lease deed dated 21.08.2006 is as a result of fraud played upon by her by the respondent and respondent is trying to usurp the ownership rights of the appellant by relying upon fraud lease deed and further the freehold obtained by the respondent is also result of fraud done by respondent and appellant reserves her right to take appropriate action against the same. In the said pleadings, she has never challenged conveyance deed. It is also noteworthy to mention here that during the course of trial before Ld. Trial Court, PW2 witness from DDA was examined and during cross-examination, a categorical question was put regarding the photocopy of the passport of the respondent as proof of possession. The contention of the appellant that the documents provided by the respondent before concerned DDA came to her possession very late but it is surprisingly while conducting cross-examination of respondent on 24.07.2014 the appellant has specifically asked about passport by giving the serial number of passport which shows that appellant was in knowledge of the record by virtue of which conveyance of suit property has happened. Even otherwise, the correctness of conveyance deed in favour of respondent is not subject matter in the instant case. Moreover, it manifests from impugned judgment that Ld. Trial Court has categorically observed in para no.28 that appellant (defendant therein) is aware of the contents of the pleadings and the documents relied by the respondent (plaintiff therein) and appellant (defendant therein) during her evidence has not placed on record any material to show that conveyance deed has been challenged before any competent authority, and though at the stage of
