Regular Second Appeal No.2960 of 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2960 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.7.2011 Harjinder Kaur ...Appellant Versus Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Nemo for remaining respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Harjinder Kaur wife of Harbhajan Singh son of Kartar Singh, appellant-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that she is owner and in possession of the land in dispute, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Avtar singh and others respondent-defendants (for short “the defendants”) from interfering into her possession, inter-alia pleading that Kartar Singh, father-in-law of the plaintiff, was the owner of the suit land. He entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.9.1996 (Ex.P1), with his son Harbhajan Singh, husband of the plaintiff. He (Kartar Singh) was stated to have also appointed his son Harbhajan Singh as his attorney by way of Power of Attorney dated 14.9.1996 (Ex.P.2). Consequently, Harbhajan Singh executed the sale deed dated 28.11.1996 (Ex.P4) in favour of his wife (plaintiff). Kartar Singh Regular Second Appeal No.2960 of 2008 (O&M) died on 11.11.1996, leaving behind his successors/defendant Nos.4 to 10 in natural succession. The plaintiff claimed that defendant Nos.4 to 10 sold the suit land to defendant Nos.1 to 3, vide registered sale deeds dated 7/10.7.1997, without any legal right. After the sale deeds, defendants have started threatening the plaintiff to take forcible possession of the land in dispute. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiff that she became the owner of the property in dispute, by way of sale deed (Ex.P4) executed by her husband as attorney of her father-in-law. Thus, she became owner and in possession of the suit land and contesting defendants intend to disturb her possession. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner as described hereinbefore. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed their separate written statements, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, suppression of material facts, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. The case set up by contesting defendants No. 1 to 3, in brief in so far as relevant, was that Kartar Singh died intestate on 11.11.1996. After his death, the mutation was duly entered and sanctioned in favour of his sons and daughters in equal shares in natural succession, including Harbhajan Singh, husband of the plaintiff. Thereafter, they (defendant Nos.4 to 10) sold their land to the extent of 7/8 share to defendant Nos.1 to 3, by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 7/10.7.1997. The actual physical possession of the suit land was also delivered to them by the vendors. In this manner, the contesting defendants were stated to be owners and in possession of the land in dispute. The alleged agreement dated 12.9.1996 (Ex.P1), power of attorney dated 14.9.1996 (Ex.P2) and the sale deed dated 28.11.1996 (Ex.P4) were stated to be forged and fabricated documents. 4. The remaining defendant Nos.4 to 10, sons and daughters of Kartar Singh (deceased), have filed their separate written statement and claimed that they Regular Second Appeal No.2960 of 2008 (O&M) had inherited 7/8 share in the suit property and sold the same to defendant Nos.1 to 3, vide registered sale deeds dated 7/10.7.1997. They delivered the actual physical possession of land in dispute to them. They (defendant Nos.1 to 3) are owners and in possession of the suit land. It will not be out of place to mention here that all the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case as depicted in the impugned judgment. 6. In order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands, the parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 14.1.2008. 9. The appellant-plaintiff still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 11. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the plaintiff became owner of the suit land, by means of sale deed dated 28.11.1996 (Ex.P4) so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in dismissing her suit, lacks merit. 12. As is evident from the record that Kartar Singh, father-in-law of plaintiff, was owner and in possession of the land in dispute. After his death, the Regular Second Appeal No.2960 of 2008 (O&M) mutation of inheritance was entered and sanctioned in favour of his sons and daughters in equal shares in natural succession. The plaintiff claimed that she became the owner by way of sale deed (Ex.P4) executed by her husband as attorney of Kartar Singh. On the contrary, according to defendant Nos.1 to 3, they became owners and in possession of the suit land to the extent of 7/8 share after its purchase from defendant Nos.4 to 10. As Kartar Singh had expired on 11.11.1996, therefore, Harbhajan Singh even as his attorney, had no power/authority to execute the sale deed on 28.11.1996 (Ex.P4) in favour of his wife. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted), even if Kartar Singh executed any power of attorney, then Harbhajan Singh ceased to exist his attorney on the eve of his death on 11.11.1996. Therefore, any such sale deed dated 28.11.1996 executed by the attorney is not only illegal, null and void but inoperative on the rights of the contesting defendants as well. 13. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 14.1.2008, the operative part of which is (para 23) as under:- “From all that has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that Kartar Singh expired on 11.11.1996 and could have not executed power of attorney Ex.P2 in favour of Harbhajan Singh on 28.11.1996 and Ex.P2 is held to be a forged document and sale deed executed on the strength of Ex.P2 is also held to be a document of no value. In the process findings of the learned trial court on issues no.1 to 4 are affirmed. Findings of the learned Trial Court on issues no.5 and 6 have not been assailed before me and remain as they have been returned.” 14. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having analyzed the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has Regular Second Appeal No.2960 of 2008 (O&M) recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this behalf. 15. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the findings of the Courts below in this respect. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant, in this relevant connection, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 16. Sequelly, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 18. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 21.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No