Regular Second Appeal No. 819 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 819 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.2.2009 *** Kanwar Singh .. Appellant VS. Anita Devi .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendant's regular second appeal through which a challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by dint of which cancellation deeds dated 30.3.2005 to the extent of cancellation of power of attorney dated 11.6.1996 by the defendant has been held illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff-respondent whose suit has been partly decreed. The plaintiff got instituted a suit against the defendant and set up a case that after taking full and final payment of the land comprised in khewat No.70 to the extent of 1/24 share from her, the defendant executed a General power of attorney bearing Vasika No. 347 dated 11.6.1996 in favour of the plaintiff to deal with the said land and also declared her as his successor of the suit land, after his death by virtue of Will dated 11.6.1996 and also furnished a receipt and thereby authenticate the delivery of possession of the land to the plaintiff, besides executed an agreement to sell in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. As per plaintiff, the defendant fell prey to greed and as a result he not only revoked the power of attorney but also cancelled the Will, as aforesaid, leading to the institution of the suit challenging the said action of the defendant. Regular Second Appeal No. 819 of 2009 2 Upon notice the defendant appeared and contested the suit of the plaintiff tooth and nail. It was his stand that though he appointed the plaintiff as his Special Power of Attorney, but never executed any Will, General power of Attorney, agreement to sell of the suit land or receipt of handing over the possession, in favour of the plaintiff and she procured his signatures on blank papers which lateron were converted into the aforesaid documents. It was also denied that the possession of the said land was ever delivered to the plaintiff vide receipt of possession, as averred by the plaintiff. After the contest, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit and declared the cancellation of GPA by the defendant as illegal, null and void, however, with regard to cancellation of Will dated 11.6.1996 it was held that the defendant was well within his right to cancel the same during his lifetime. The appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed, as a result the instant regular second appeal has been preferred by him. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The plaintiff proved on record General Power of Attorney, Will, Possession Letter, Agreement to Sell and Receipt of Possession as Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/E1 respectively, but none of the aforesaid documents confer any title of the suit land in her favour and only prove her possession thereupon and thus, the Courts below on appreciation of law covering the issue between the parties as well as evidence produced on record, rightly held that the plaintiff on the basis of said documents cannot be termed as owner of the suit property, but creates an interest of the plaintiff in the suit property by virtue of GPA, whose execution was duly proved on record by the plaintiff by producing over- whleming evidence on record, which, as per Clause 19 cannot be revoked and the plaintiff has become an agent of the defendant and thus the cancellation of power of attorney by the defendant is illegal, null and void. The plea of the defendant that the GPA is forged one stands belied from the fact that in cancellation deed Ex.PY there was recital by the defendant that he appointed Anita Devi as his power of attorney and since he has lost faith in her, therefore, he is cancelling the GPA. Even the photograph of defendant was admittedly found pasted on the said power of attorney, which Regular Second Appeal No. 819 of 2009 3 led the Courts below to conclude that the same was executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff, which, he has no authority to cancel. With regard to cancellation of Will dated 11.6.1996, it was rightly held that a Will can be cancelled by its testator at any time before his death and the same comes into play only after the death of its executant. Further, the Courts below rightly held that since the suit is for declaration in respect of cancellation of GPA and Will and consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining operation of the said cancellation deeds, therefore, the suit is very much maintainable. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below in declaring the cancellation deed to the extent of GPA, as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff, is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than that of concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 19,2009 Jiten