IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.2954 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.2.2009 Om Parkash. ....... Appellant through Shri Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate. Versus Tulli Ram and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.8536-C of 2008 The application is allowed and delay of 133 days in refiling of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.2954 of 2008 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 29.4.2005 and 25.10.2007 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter described as `the First Appellate Court') vide which the suit of the plaintiffs- respondent nos. 1 and 2 was decreed and the appeal of the defendant no.2- appellant was dismissed. A suit was filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 against the appellant R.S.A.No.2954 of 2008 -2- ... and one Gulab son of Ram Chand for declaration and permanent injunction as a consequential relief. It was pleaded therein that they were owners and in possession of the land which was described in the plaint and that they had appointed defendant no.1-Gulab by a registered deed as their General Power of Attorney (for short, `GPA') on 6.9.2000, which was cancelled on 3.10.2000 and a legal notice was sent to Gulab informing him about the cancellation of the GPA. Despite this, the land in dispute was alienated to the appellant by Gulab vide sale deed dated 9.10.2000 on the basis of the GPA. It was also pleaded that since the GPA had been cancelled, Gulab had no authority to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land and that the same was the result of a fraudulent and mala fide action on his behalf. Upon notice, Gulab and the appellant put in appearance. They filed their separate written statement. Gulab controverted the plea raised by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and submitted that he had no knowledge of the cancellation of the GPA. He, however, admitted the execution of the sale deed. The appellant averred that he was the bona fide purchase of the suit land and had no knowledge about the cancellation of the GPA in favour of Gulab. The agreement to sell was stated to have been entered into with him on 20.9.2000 and the sale deed was concluded on 9.10.2000. In the replications, respondent nos. 1 and 2 denied the averments of Gulab and the appellant and reiterated their case. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- R.S.A.No.2954 of 2008 -3- ... 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the sale deed dated 9.10.2000 bearing Vasika No.4118 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is illegal, null and void?OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit?OPD 6. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35-A CPC?OPD 7. Whether defendant no.2 is bona fide purchaser of the suit land?OPD-2 8. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 CPC?OPD-2 9. Relief. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the suit, Gulab did not appear and he was proceeded ex parte vide its order dated 1.8.2002 by the trial Court. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the suit of respondent nos. 1 and 2 was decreed by concluding that the GPA stood cancelled and further that the sale deed was the result of mala fide intention of Gulab. R.S.A.No.2954 of 2008 -4- ... In appeal filed by the appellant, the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous as there was no intimation to the appellant regarding the cancellation of the GPA in favour of Gulab and consequently, he was the bona fide purchaser of the suit land for consideration. He further contended that the findings of the Courts below being perverse deserve to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Concededly, the registered GPA was executed in favour of Gulab on 6.9.2000. The agreement to sell the suit land was entered into between Gulab and the appellant on 20.9.2000 and it was stipulated therein that the sale consideration would be Rs.4,50,000/-. It was also mentioned therein that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid as earnest money by the appellant and the remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be paid at the time of registration of the deed on 19.9.2002, which was the date fixed for completing the sale. The GPA was cancelled on 3.10.2000 and strangely enough, the period which was fixed for completing the sale on 19.9.2002 was abandoned and the deed was executed on 5.10.2000 barely two days after the cancellation of the GPA and the same was got registered on 9.10.2000. This is not the only factor which creates suspicion in the mind of the Court, but also the fact that the appellant had admitted in his cross- R.S.A.No.2954 of 2008 -5- ... examination while appearing as DW4 that he had not paid the balance consideration at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The plea of the appellant that he had no knowledge of the cancellation of the GPA is also baseless because Gulab, the person upon whom the notice was alleged to be served by respondent nos. 1 and 2, did not step into the witness box despite the fact that he was impleaded as a defendant and had also filed his written statement, but later on, was proceeded ex parte. If he had done so, that would certainly have served the interest of the appellant. When the aforementioned factors are taken into consideration cumulatively, the irresistibly conclusion is that Gulab, who was conscious of the cancellation of the GPA, hastened the execution and registration of the sale deed and that too without the remaining sale consideration, implying thereby that the sale deed was not a result of free and voluntary expression of will of the vendors, but was the result of mala fide and fraudulent action of the GPA holder of the vendors. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse and deserve to be upheld. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgments and decrees are maintained and the appeal is dismissed. February 12,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge