IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2181 of 2006 Date of Decision : July 07, 2008 Baldev Singh ....Appellant Versus Baldeep Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocate, for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. By a common judgment the present appeal and R.S.A. No. 2180 of 2006 are being disposed of as both the appeals involve similar questions of law and facts. Baldev Singh-appellant filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals 4 Marlas in Rect. No. 78 Khasra No. 23/4 min (4-4). Further, sale deed dated 3.7.1998 executed by Mohinder Kaur-respondent as holder of General Power of Attorney of the appellant in favour of Baldeep Singh-respondent was executed without any consideration and with an intention to grab the property of the appellant, more so as the power of attorney executed by the appellant in favour of Regular Second Appeal No. 2181 of 2006 Mohinder Kaur-respondent was cancelled by him on 27.1.1997. Therefore, Baldeep Singh-respondent had no right, title or interest in the suit property. He be restrained from transferring the land in question by way of mortgage, sale, gift or in any other manner on the basis of sale deed dated 3.7.1998 and also from taking possession thereof and closing the door of the house of the appellant which opens in the suit land. Baldeep Singh-respondent No.1 also filed a suit against Baldev Singh-appellant, his wife Baldev Kaur and his son Simarjit Singh to the effect that he was owner in possession of the aforementioned suit land whereas Baldev Singh and others had no connection with the same and, therefore, they be restrained from taking illegal and forcible possession of the suit property. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.8.2003. After the framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa vide judgment dated 25.11.2004 dismissed the suit of Baldev Singh-appellant while decreeing that of Baldeep Singh-respondent No. 1. The appellant and his family members were restrained from dispossessing him from the suit property except in due course of law. The appellant challenged the aforementioned decisions by filing two appeals, first one regarding dismissal of his suit and the other against the grant of decree in the suit filed by Baldeep Singh. Both the appeals were, however, dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa by a common judgment dated 13.4.2006. Aggrieved of the same, Baldev Singh-appellant has filed the present appeal -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2181 of 2006 against Baldeep Singh and Mohinder Kaur for challenging the dismissal of his suit while he along with his wife and son has filed R.S.A. No. 2180 of 2006 against Baldeep Singh to challenge the decree obtained by said Baldeep Singh. In the suit filed by Baldev Singh-appellant, learned trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property as detailed in the head note of the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether sale deed No. 2342 dated 3.7.1998 by de- fendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is ille- gal and void and consequential mutation void ? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of decla- ration and permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff has concealed the true facts from the Court ? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct ? OPD. 7. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 8. Whether defendant Baldeep Singh has purchased the property as bonafide purchaser ? OPD. -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2181 of 2006 9. Whether plaintiff has misused the process of Court ? OPD. 10.Whether suit is bad for want of proper Court fee? OPD. 11.Relief. In the suit filed by Baldeep Singh-respondent, learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property as detailed in the head note of plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of per- manent injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No. 1 is owner in posses- sion ? OPD. 4. Whether sale deed executed by Mohinder Kaur in favour of plaintiff is valid ? OPP. 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action or right to file the present suit ? OPD. 6. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 7. Relief. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals submitted that Baldev Singh had executed a power of attorney dated 26.7.1993 in favour of Mohinder Kaur-defendant. Later on, he lost faith in -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 2181 of 2006 her and vide deed dated 27.1.1997, cancelled/revoked the power of attorney. From that day onward, Mohinder Kaur-defendant had no right to act upon the same or transfer Baldev Singh’s property on its basis. She connived with her nephew Baldeep Singh and played a fraud upon Baldev Singh by executing sale deed dated 3.7.1998 in favour of Baldeep Singh-defendant, which was illegal, being without consideration. The receipt dated 26.7.1993 was a forged document. It was also submitted that Baldeep Singh had no concern with the suit property as it had been illegally alienated in his favour by Mohinder Kaur-defendant. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submitted that Baldev Singh previously owned the suit land which he sold in favour of Mohinder Kaur-defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 26.7.1993 by executing a receipt Ex. P1 for the said amount. Instead of executing a formal sale deed himself, Baldev Singh-appellant executed a power of attorney Ex. P2 on 26.7.1993 itself in favour of Mohinder Kaur-defendant, authorising her to transfer the land on his behalf. It was on the basis of the said power of attorney that Mohinder Kaur-defendant transferred the suit property on behalf of Baldev Singh- appellant in favour of Baldeep Singh-respondent vide sale deed dated 3.7.1998. The alleged cancellation of power of attorney was illegal and malafide. Moreover, it was not conveyed to Mohinder Kaur and she acted in good faith and rightly transferred the suit property in favour of Baldeep Singh. Admittedly, Baldev Singh was the owner of the suit property. -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 2181 of 2006 He executed a power of attorney dated 26.7.1993 in favour of Mohinder Kaur-respondent to transfer his property on his behalf. On its basis, Mohinder Kaur transferred the suit property in favour of her nephew Baldeep Singh on 3.7.1998. In order to prove the cancellation deed dated 27.1.1997, Baldev Singh-appellant examined its scribe Ankush Singla PW1. Perusal of cancellation deed Ex. P.1 would show that it was attested by Suraj Bhan, Municipal Councillor and Shri A.R. Gupta, Advocate. None of the attesting witnesses had been examined by Baldev Singh before the trial Court. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that cancellation deed Ex. P1 stood proved. Even otherwise, it was not admissible per se as it was neither an old document nor executed more than 30 years ago. Moreover, no evidence had been led by Baldev Singh to show that cancellation of power of attorney on 27.1.1997 was ever conveyed to Mohinder Kaur. Under these circumstances, Mohinder Kaur acted in good faith while executing the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of her nephew Baldeep Singh. There is another startling fact which demolishes the entire case of Baldev Singh. In support of his pleadings, he did not even step into the witness-box so as to face Baldeep Singh and Mohinder Kaur. At the same time, in his plaint, Baldev Singh admitted that on 26.7.1993, he executed receipt Ex. P1 after obtaining an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and also executing a power of attorney in respect of Mohinder Kaur so as to transfer the suit property. In view of the above, it has to be held that Mohinder Kaur -6- Regular Second Appeal No. 2181 of 2006 acted in a bonafide manner in executing a sale deed on 3.7.1998 in respect of the suit land owned by Baldev Singh in favour of her nephew Baldeep Singh. Both the learned Courts below also concurrently concluded that cancellation deed dated 27.1.1997 did not stand proved and also that Mohinder Kaur had no knowledge about the same when she executed the sale deed on 3.7.1998 of the suit land in favour of Baldeep Singh. These findings are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. There is no material on the record from which it could be established that Baldeep Singh had no right, title or interest in the suit property as he had become its owner on account of execution of sale deed dated 3.7.1998 in his favour by his aunt Mohinder Kaur, who acted as an attorney of Baldev Singh-appellant. These findings of facts cannot be disturbed, and, that too, in a second appeal which could be maintainable only on a substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants in both the appeals, arise for consideration. Resultantly, there is no merit in both the appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 07, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO -7-