R.S.A.No. 1523 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1523 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.2.2011 Raj Kumar ......Appellant Versus Prakash Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Chetan Salathia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Shanti Devi had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she was owner in possession of the suit land. Defendants No.1 and 2 tried to take forcible possession of the suit land basing reliance on sale deed dated 20.11.1995 executed by defendant No.3 in their favour representing himself to be attorney of the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 2 in their written, statement admitted the fact that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that defendant No.3, who was the son of R.S.A.No. 1523 of 2007 (O&M) 2 the plaintiff, had executed sale deed in favour of the answering defendants on the basis of a power of attorney executed by plaintiff Shanti Devi in his favour. Defendant No.3 proceeded ex parte as he failed to appear despite service. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the alleged power of attorney dated 2.11.1995 and sale deed dated 20.11.1995 are illegal, null and void? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as claimed in the suit? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own acts, conduct etc.? OPD 8. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 10. Relief.” R.S.A.No. 1523 of 2007 (O&M) 3 The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 6.1.2006 and held that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land and the sale deed dated 20.11.1995 was illegal and void and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.1.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed the suit on 13.12.1995 challenging the sale deed executed by Puran Singh, her son, on 20.11.1995 on the basis of a forged power of attorney. In support of her case, plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and also proved on record judgment and decree dated 27.3.1999 passed in an another litigation wherein also the general power of attorney dated 2.11.1995 was in issue. Defendants, however, failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal. As per Ex.P-2, judgment dated 27.3.1999 passed in a suit filed by plaintiff Shanti Devi challenging sale deed dated 3.11.1995 executed by Puran Singh in favour of Om Parkash on the basis of General power of attorney dated 2.11.1995 (which is also under challenge in this case), the General power of attorney was held to be illegal. Para No. 12 of the judgment reads as under:- R.S.A.No. 1523 of 2007 (O&M) 4 “On going through the above said discussions, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant is hereby decreed to the effect that general power of attorney mark- A dated 2.11.1995 and sale deed mark-B dated 3.11.1995 bearing vasika No.12697 and the mutation No.3480 dated 9.11.1995 reflected on pursuance of the alleged sale deed are hereby declared illegal, wrong and null and not effected on the part of the plaintiff and defendants are hereby permanently restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be made accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.” Thus, the general power of attorney dated 2.11.1995 was held to be illegal, null and void. In the present case, no evidence has been led by the defendants to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff and in these circumstances, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 14, 2011 anita