R.S.A No. 3627 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3627 of 2008 Date of decision : July 13, 2009 Sunita Saini, ...... Appellant (s) v. Baldev Singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent. *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of the property in dispute on the ground of being the purchaser thereof. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the convoluted transactions relied upon by the respondent itself go to show that in fact the power of attorney Ex.P1 was obtained by fraud. He has argued that as per the case of the respondent, Jasbir Kaur had been given power of attorney by the appellant on payment of Rs.65,000/- and as per allegations in the R.S.A No. 3627 of 2008 ::2:: plaint, she first sold the property for Rs.52,000/-, repurchased it for Rs.55,000/- and again sold it for Rs.55,000/-, thus, suffering a loss of Rs.13,000/-. As per the learned counsel, these facts themselves show that there is some thing fishy about the whole transaction. He has proposed the following questions :- “ i) Whether the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the house in dispute vide sale deed dated 4.12.1998 ? ii) Whether the sale deed dated 4.12.1998 is the result of fraud ? iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties ? iv) Whether the respondent/plaintiff has no locus- standi to file the present suit ? v) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for possession of the house in dispute ? vi) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by Courts below are liable to be set aside as mentioned in the grounds of appeal ? vii) Whether the appellant/defendant has executed general power of attorney in favour of Jasbir Kaur on 5.8.1997 and received a consideration of Rs.65,000/- from her ? viii) Whether Jasbir Kaur had played a fraud with appellant/defendant by forging general power of attorney dated 5.8.1997 regarding the house in dispute ? ix) Whether the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is R.S.A No. 3627 of 2008 ::3:: liable to be dismissed with costs in view of the facts mentioned in the grounds of appeal ?” Questions No.3 and 4 have not been pressed. There is no dispute regarding question No.1. As regards questions No.2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, the answer to these questions depends upon the finding regarding validity of the power of attorney dated 5.8.1997, Ex.P1. This is a pure question of fact. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the entire evidence and has particularly emphasized the fact that as per averment in the plaint, even an agreement to sell had been allegedly executed by the appellant but this fact was falsified by the evidence of the respondent himself. However, with regard to the validity of the power of attorney, the Courts below have found that firstly the appellant did not lay any foundation for the bald averment regarding fraud. The second factor which has weighed with the Courts below is the fact that after the sale deed in favour of the respondent on 4.12.1998, the appellant got the power of attorney dated 5.8.1997 cancelled by registered deed dated 10.12.1998 in which she categorically mentioned that she had executed a power of attorney dated 5.8.1997 and that she was cancelling the same because she had lost faith in her attorney. On the basis of these facts, the Courts below have held that the appellant has not been able to establish the plea that the power of attorney dated 5.8.1997 is vitiated. In my opinion, the finding on the power of attorney Ex.P1 cannot be held bad on the ground that there is no evidence to support it or on the ground that the evidence in support thereof has been misread to such an extent that such a finding has been rendered perverse. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is R.S.A No. 3627 of 2008 ::4:: dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 13, 2009. JUDGE `kk'