RSA No.624 of 2009 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.624 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision: 26.04.2010 Ram Chander .. Plaintiff/Cross Objector Versus Smt.Majidan and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the respondents AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondents and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant. The case set up by the appellant was that the respondent No.5 got executed a General Power of Attorney dated 13th December, 1996 from him 'on playing fraud and undue influence' on him. Thereafter, a semi-coherent story was given as to in what circumstances and how the appellant was prevailed upon to execute a General Power of Attorney, whereby he had granted carte blanche to respondent. No.5 to deal with his property measuring 51 Kanals. The plaint further goes on to add that within 5 days, on 18th December, 1996, respondent No.5 executed a sale deed of a part of the land in favour of the respondent No.1 and, on the very next day, i.e. on19th December, 1996, a 90 years' lease of another portion of the land in favour of the respondent No.2, who is the husband of the respondent No.1. As a result of all these RSA No.624 of 2009 (O & M) ::2:: transactions, the entire land of the appellant was alienated. The learned Trial Court held that since the respondent No.2 had admitted that the amount of sale consideration had been paid to the respondent No.5 one month prior to the sale transaction, it was a clear case where the money had been paid even before the General Power of Attorney had been executed and since the entire money was allegedly been paid in cash, thus, the sale deed was without consideration. The learned Appellate Court, however, on consideration of the fact that the General Power of Attorney had been accepted by the appellant and not being impressed by the story given out by the appellant detailing the circumstances under which he had executed the General Power of Attorney, held that at best the appellant had a case of recovery of the amount against the respondent No.5 and further holding the respondents No.1 and 2 to be bona fide alienees without notice of any defect in the General Power of Attorney, upheld the alienations in their favour and consequently dismissed the suit (as regards respondents No.1 and 2). The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the sale deed and lease deed are not null and void as the same were without consideration ? (ii) Whether a sale consideration paid one month prior to the execution of the document to a person who was not authorized to receive the same, can be considered as sale consideration ? (iii) Whether the sale deed and lease deed executed by respondent No.3 are not because of fraud and misrepresentation as the same were executed just within 5 days of the execution of G.P.A. ? (iv) Whether a sale deed and lease deed can be held RSA No.624 of 2009 (O & M) ::3:: genuine documents despite the fact that no evidence was led to prove the same ? (v) Whether the finding of First Appellate Court is based on misreading of evidence ? (vi) Whether the finding of the learned First Appellate Court is not perverse ? It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. In view of the circumstances and the finding brought out above, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings of fact regarding the allegations of fraud in the execution of the General Power of Attorney had been held to have been arrived at without their being any evidence to support the same or on such a perverse misreading of the same so as to render it liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In view of the admission regarding the execution of the General Power of Attorney by the appellant, the admission by the respondent No.2 that the money was paid one month prior to the sale deed would have lesser effect. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the present appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 26, 2010 sukhpreet