RSA No. 281 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 281 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 10 , 2009 Sudesh Kumari ...... Appellant Versus Jaswinder Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute. On 23.9.2008 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the appellant contends that vide general power of attorney Ex.A-1 dated 28.4.1994, Amar Kaur, who was owner of the suit land, appointed defendant/appellant as her general attorney for 3 kanals land and pursuant thereto, the defendant sold the said land vide sale deeds dated 3.5.1995 and 10.6.1996 and, therefore, Amar Kaur was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land but much after execution of the said sale deeds by the defendant, Amar Kaur, cancelled the RSA No. 281 of 2007(O&M) 2 power of attorney in favour of defendant on 15.8.1006mand thereafter executed sale deeds dated 21.8.1996 and 22.8.1996 in favour of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 respectively, who are none else but real sons of Amar Kaur. It is contended that the said sale deeds by Amar Kaur in favour of the plaintiffs conferred no right, title or interest in the suit land which had been validly sold by the defendant pursuant to power of attorney given to her by Amar Kaur. Notice of motion for 9.1.2009.” During arguments the controversy between the parties has considerably narrowed down. It is not disputed that Sudesh Kumari sold the 3 kanals 19 marlas of land for which she had been granted power of attorney. Thus there is no question of an injunction against her. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the grouse of his client is that while granting injunction the courts below have given a finding that the ownership of the respondents has been proved whereas this is the real dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly conceded that he has no objection if it is clarified that the question regarding ownership of the land in dispute would not be determined by any observation made in the judgments and decrees under appeal and the question regarding the ownership would be left open to be decided at an appropriate stage. With these observations this appeal is disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 10, 2009 sunita