RSA No.336 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 336 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 01,2011 Sucha Singh .....Appellant Versus Sohan Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in joint possession of the land. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 8 kanals 9 marlas out of land measuring 53 kanals 15 marlas as described in the head note of the plaint. Plaintiff had appointed Darshan Kaka as his attorney to file the suit. Defendant No. 2 was threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land and on an inquiry, it was found that defendant No.1 had sold the suit land to defendant No. 2 vide sale RSA No.336 of 2010 (O&M) 2 deed dated 19.12.2002. Mutation was got sanctioned by defendant no.2 in his favour on the basis of the sale deed. The sale deed was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. In case the sale deed was proved, then defendant No.1 was bound to render accounts to the plaintiff of the amount which he had received as consideration. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff was not owner of the suit property. Defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit property and had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 19.12.2002. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court”- “1.Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for ?OPP 2.Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as a consequential relief?OPP 3.Whether in the alternative, plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 200/- as prayed for?OPP 4.Whether plaintiff is barred by his act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 5.Whether plaintiff is not coming to the court with clean hands?If so, its effect?OPD 6.Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 7.Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.7.2006 and the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Nawanshahar vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2009. Hence, RSA No.336 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff was owner of the property in dispute. The case of defendant no. 2 is that he had purchased the suit property and the sale deed was executed by defendant no.1 in his favour on the basis of power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff himself failed to appear in the witness box. The suit was filed by the plaintiff through his attorney Darshan Kaka but thereafter, Buta Singh appeared in the witness box as attorney of the plaintiff. It is a settled proposition of law that an attorney can depose only qua those facts on behalf of the plaintiff which are in his personal knowledge. Thus, Buta Singh, while appearing in the witness box, could not have deposed qua the facts which are in exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to plead and prove his case and cannot draw any benefit from the weakness in evidence led by the defendants. It has been noticed by the trial Court that Buta Singh, PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that the sale deed was executed in favour of Sohan Singh on behalf of Sucha Singh by his attorney for a consideration of ` 6,34,000/-. However, only ` 5,00,000/- were paid to Sucha singh against receipt. The previous agreement to sell was also executed between Sucha Singh and Mohan Singh but the sale deed could not be executed as Mohan Singh was not having sufficient funds. Sohan Singh was having the power of attorney in his favour executed by the plaintiff qua the suit property and on the basis of the same, he executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. In these RSA No.336 of 2010 (O&M) 4 circumstances, the plaintiff had failed to successfully challenge the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on his behalf. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 01, 2011 arya