R.S.A. No. 4882 of 2010 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4882 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 13,2011 Brij Pal Singh and others ............................. Appellants versus Yashpal and others ..................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. ... RITU BAHRI, J. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession that they are owners of the property as detailed in the plaint. Plaintiffs' case is that Brij Pal Singh, Harpal Singh, Jagpal Singh and Udai Pal Singh were serving in the Army in the year 1986. The other brothers of plaintiffs namely Ompal Singh, Satpal Singh, Jaipal Singh and defendants No. 4 and 5 and their mother Smt. Ganga Devi were in the village Bhondsi and thus they were at home doing agricultural work. The brothers and mother of the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 and 5 sold out the entire land along with the share of R.S.A. No. 4882 of 2010 (O&M) [ 2 ] the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed on 28.10.1986 in favour of defendant No.1. This sale was without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the vendee/ defendant No.1 further sold this land to defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 28.4.1991. Defendant No.2 further transferred the land in favour of defendant No.3 vide judgment and decree dated 11.9.1993 in case No. 279/1993 passed by the Court of Shri R.S.Baswana, the then Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon. The case of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 is that they never appointed and authorised Smt. Vijay Kumari and Smt. Sharda Devi as their General Power of Attorney on 11.8.1986 as mentioned in the sale deed dated 28.10.1986. They had no right to execute the sale in favour of defendant No.1 on 28.10.1986. On 21.12.2004 the trial Court framed the issues mentioned hereunder:- 1)Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 4/11 share as alleged? 2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the suit land to the extent of their share as alleged? 3)Whether the impugned sale deeds and the judgment and decree are illegal, null and void? The finding on all the three issues has been given against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have examined PW2- R.S.A. No. 4882 of 2010 (O&M) [ 3 ] Ompal Singh who deposed that the General Power of Attorney has not been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Vijay Kumari and Sharda Devi. The brother of the plaintiffs has appeared in the witness box as PW2 and admitted the sale deed dated 28.10.1986. The plaintiffs chose not to examine their wives in whose favour the General Power of Attorney has been given. The plaintiffs have not joined their other brothers who were party to the said sale deed dated 28.10.1986. The defendants No. 4 and 5 have appeared and admitted in their written statement that they have sold their share. They did not raise any objection regarding the General Power of Attorney at the time of its execution. No witness of the sale deed had been examined by the plaintiffs. PW1, who was the hand writing expert, did not mark any sign of forgery on the General Power of Attorney. The plaintiffs have sought a relief of possession and no relief for cancellation of sale deed and General Power of Attorney has been sought by them. In view of the above findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 19.9.2009. These findings have been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The burden to prove the ingredients of fraud and misrepresentation was on the plaintiffs that the sale had been executed by Smt. Vijay Kumari and Smt. Sharda Devi on a bogus General Power of Attorney. The plaintiffs have been non-suited on the ground that they had filed the suit R.S.A. No. 4882 of 2010 (O&M) [ 4 ] after 11 years and 9 months on 273.1998 challenging the sale deed dated 28.10.1986. The plaintiffs should have filed the suit within 3 years from the date of execution of the document as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this Court in the present appeal. Dismissed. ( RITU BAHRI ) 13.10.2011 JUDGE rupi