R.S.A.No.1704 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1704 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.4.2011 Bhinder Singh and another ......Appellant Versus Bilas Kaur .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she was permanent resident of village Attapur and was owner in possession of the suit property. The defendants had no concern with the suit property. The plaintiff had never executed any General Power of Attorney dated 8.9.1999 in favour of defendant No.1. The said General Power of Attorney was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. Defendant No.1 was son-in-law of the plaintiff and on 8.9.1999, he gave an assurance to the plaintiff that he would R.S.A.No.1704 of 2011 (O&M) 2 get an increase in her pension. Due to this reason, plaintiff was taken to Court Complex, Fatehgarh Sahib. Defendant No.1 took thumb impression of the plaintiff on certain papers. Later the plaintiff came to know that in fact, a sale deed had been got executed on the basis of the alleged General Power of Attorney. The sale deed was a paper transaction and was without consideration. Nothing had been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, stated that he was husband of the grand daughter of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had authorised him to sale, mortgage or lease out the suit property vide General Power of Attorney dated 8.9.1999. On the basis of the said power of attorney, he had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 for a consideration of ` 1,50,000/-. Defendant No.2, in his written statement, averred that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether General Power of Attorney bearing Vasika No.104 Bahi No.4 dated 8.9.1999 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deed no.2248 dated 10.9.99 executed by alleged power of attorney defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and same is liable to be set aside ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as R.S.A.No.1704 of 2011 (O&M) 3 prayed for? OPP 4.Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 3.9.1999. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge. Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had challenged, the General Power of Attorney dated 8.9.1999 and sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of the said General Power of Attorney. Admittedly, the plaintiff was more than 90 years old. Defendant No.1 is the husband of grand daughter of Bilas Kaur. Bilas Kaur-plaintiff had four sons and she was having cordial relations with them. In these circumstances, the learned first Appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiff had no occasion to execute a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff could have very well executed a power of attorney in favour of one of her sons. A criminal case was also got registered against defendant No.1 under Sections 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code with R.S.A.No.1704 of 2011 (O&M) 4 regard to General Power of Attorney and sale deed in question. During the course of arguments, a query was put to learned counsel for the appellants as to whether the sale consideration received by defendant No.1 on behalf of the plaintiff had been deposited in the account of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants replied that the said question was not material. Thus, it is evident that the sale consideration never came to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has taken a specific stand that she had been taken to the Court Complex on the pretext that her pension would be got increased but defendant No.1 by playing a fraud upon her got executed the power of attorney in question. In these circumstances, learned first Appellate Court rightly held that the General Power of Attorney was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. Consequently, the sale deed dated 10.9.1999 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was liable to be set aside. 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 April 21, 2011 anita