record and no mutation on the basis thereof had been sanctioned. The sale deed dated 20.10.2003 (Ex.D-16) has been executed by Dalip Singh, defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1. A bald averment to state that such sale deeds have been executed by way of misrepresentation and fraud would require to be corroborated and proved on record by leading cogent and relevant evidence on record. It was incumbent upon the plaintiffsappellants to have proved the factum of misrepresentation and fraud beyond reasonable doubt. To the contrary, all the attendant circumstances are in fact in favour of the sale deeds having been executed validly and for valuable consideration. Firstly, no reasoning has come forth from the plaintiffs-appellants as to why the consent decree suffered in the year 1990 had not been reflected in the revenue record at any point of time and in any case not till 2004 when the sale deed had been executed by their father in the names of defendant no.1. Secondly, defendant no.2, Dalip Singh, father of the plaintiffs-appellants admitted that he had received the requisite consideration and it was thereupon that the sale deed had been got registered in favour of defendant no.1. That apart, even after the consent decree dated 25.10.1990, Dalip Singh, father of the plaintiffs-appellants had obtained a loan from the Kshetriya Gramin Bank after mortgaging his land vide Rapat No.305 dated 4.5.1994. Even the share of Dalip Singh's wife namely Amar Kaur was alienated by her Power of Attorney namely Buta Singh i.e the plaintiff-appellant himself. Ex.D-33 was the loan agreement, whereby a loan was taken from Fatehabad Primary Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank by the plaintiff-appellant Buta Singh by mortgaging the land of Dalip Singh.
