Civil Revision No. 7474 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7474 of 2011 Date of decision. 05.12.2011 Balbir Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Kaur ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by Balbir Kaur, the plaintiff against the order dated 07.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 23.09.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana has been dismissed. Balbir Kaur filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner of land measuring 29 kanals 01 marla fully detailed in the head note of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in her peaceful possession over the said property as also from dispossessing her forcibly therefrom. Civil Revision No. 7474 of 2011 --2-- Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC on the averments that she is owner in possession of the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2011 executed by Surjit Singh as attorney of defendant Sukhwinder Kaur. According to her, the defendant has started threatening her of dispossession from the suit property and she is also threatening her of interfering in her possession over the same. She has, thus, prayed for restraining her from interfering in her possession over the suit property till decision of the suit. The defendant has resisted the suit as well as the application. According to her, she is the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. According to her, she sold land measuring 56 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Raqba vide sale deed dated 16.03.2009 to someone else. She denied having given any power of attorney to Surjit Singh. On perusal of the jamabandi, she came to know that the suit land has been sold to the plaintiff. On further inquiry, she came to know that Surjit Singh on the basis of a forged and fabricated general power of attorney dated 16.03.2009 sold the suit land to the plaintiff. The defendant immediately cancelled the power of attorney vide document dated 10.06.2011 and the revenue authorities had cancelled the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed vide order dated 22.06.2011. She has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application for ad-interim injunction. Hearing learned counsel for the parties , learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 23.09.2011. Civil Revision No. 7474 of 2011 --3-- Balbir Kaur preferred an appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 07.11.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and the judgment, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shivoy Dhir, learned counsel for the respondent-caveator and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the sale deed executed by Surjit Singh on 03.06.2011 is on the basis of the authority conferred upon him by way of general power of attorney executed in his favour by the defendant on 16.03.2009. He has submitted that the defendant has not challenged the sale deed so far. According to him, till the sale deed stands, the plaintiff will be prima-facie taken as owner in possession of the suit property. He has submitted that learned trial court and learned First Appellate Court have erred in finding no prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. He has submitted that learned trial court and the First Appellate Court have given findings on the validity of the sale deed, which could not be given while deciding the application for ad-interim injunction. He has submitted that so far as the order of learned trial court as well as the judgment of First Appellate Court are concerned, her suit stands finally decided and, therefore, the same are bad and are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Sukhwinder Kaur is the mother of Surjit Singh while Balbir Kaur, plaintiff Civil Revision No. 7474 of 2011 --4-- is the wife of said Surjit Singh. According to him, Sukhwinder Kaur, respondent went to the Tehsil office on 16.03.2009 to execute a sale deed in respect of her 56 kanals 5 marlas of land in favour of someone else. According to him, on that day, her son Surjit Singh got general power of attorney executed fraudulently and on the basis of that power of attorney, he has executed a sale deed in favour of his wife on 03.06.2011 and got the same registered. According to him, there is no question of the defendant giving possession of the suit land to the plaintiff-petitioner. He has further submitted that the sale consideration of Rs.52,00,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed has never changed hands. According to him, immediately on coming to know of the fraud, she cancelled the general power of attorney and the revenue authorities have already cancelled the mutation, against which, an appeal is however pending. He has further submitted that the main concern of the petitioner is that the defendant is getting soil lifted from the land in question and this very fact proves that the defendant is in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff is not in possession of the same. Though while deciding the application for ad-interim injunction, the courts are not required to give findings on the contentious issues arising between the parties on which the evidence has to be taken, yet in such a case, comment is limited to the aspect of possession of the applicant and does not amount to expression on merits of the case. In the case in hand, the general power of attorney in favour of Surjit Singh is dated 16.03.2009 when admittedly Sukhwinder Kaur executed a sale deed in respect of her other land in favour of someone else. He kept silent for Civil Revision No. 7474 of 2011 --5-- about two years and thereafter he executed a sale deed in respect of 29 kanals 1 marlas of land in favour of his wife and has shown a sale consideration of Rs.52,00,000/- to have been paid, which has never reached Sukhwinder Kaur. There is nothing on the record to suggest that even a single penny from the sale consideration has come to Sukhwinder Kaur. The fact that the defendant is lifting soil from the suit land and the plaintiff is seeking ad-interim injunction for restraining her from doing so would show that the defendant herself is in possession of the suit land so far. Even without commenting on the validity of the sale deed, the plaintiff cannot be held to be prima-facie shown in possession of the suit land and , therefore, no fault can be found with the orders of learned courts below whereby the relief of ad-interim injunction has been declined to the plaintiff- petitioner. In these circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned orders. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. 05.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge