RSA No.4461 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEALNo.4461 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 6 th MAY, 2011 Preetam Lal & another .... Appellants Versus Maksood & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.13357-C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal Defendants No.1 and 2 Preetam Lal and Raj Kumar are in second appeal. Suit was filed by Maksood plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 and Seena plaintiff No.2, (since deceased and represented by respondents No.2 to 7) against defendants No.1 and 2/appellants, Balbir Singh-defendant No.3/respondent No.8 and Karan Singh defendant No.4 (since deceased and represented by respondents No.9 to 12). The plaintiffs alleged that they never executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 and the alleged power of attorney dated 03.10.1997 is forged and fabricated. Consequent sale deed dated 30.11.1998 executed by defendant No.2 as attorney of the plaintiffs on the basis of power of attorney dated 03.10.1997 regarding the suit land RSA No.4461 of 2009 (O&M) -2- measuring 45 Kanals being 900/134719 share of agricultural land measuring 6735 Kanals 19 Marlas is, also therefore, illegal and null and void. The plaintiffs also sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 45 Kanals. Relief of injunction was also claimed. Defendant No.1 and 2 broadly controverted the plaint allegations and contended that the plaintiffs themselves had executed power of attorney in question and the sale deed in question by defendant No.2 on behalf of plaintiffs as their attorney in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the suit land is also legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned trial court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.2008 dismissed the suit holding that neither plaintiffs nor defendants are owners of the suit land although power of attorney and sale deed were also held to be invalid. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants stated at the bar that appellants had no grievance against the finding of the courts below that the power of attorney dated 03.10.1997 and sale deed dated 30.04.1998 are illegal and null and void. However counsel for the appellants contended that observation of the lower appellate court in paragraph 14 of its judgment that the total land measuring 6735 Kanals 19 Marlas (of which the suit land is share) is owned by Shamlat Deh of village Nanehra is untenable. It is also contended that RSA No.4461 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Civil court does not even have jurisdiction to adjudication upon this question. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Suffice to observe that finding of the courts below that neither plaintiffs nor defendants No.1 and 2 are owners of the suit land measuring 45 Kanals has to be affirmed but observation of the lower appellate court regarding 6735 Kanals 19 Marlas land (except the suit land measuring 45 Kanals) being owned by Shamlat Deh will have no bearing on the rights, if any, of any person in the said land because the said issue was not required to be adjudicated upon in the instant lis. Subject to aforesaid observation, the instant second appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 6th May, 2011 'raj'