R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.2.2011 Satpal and another ......Appellants Versus Shanti and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration claiming that they were owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 3/ 12th share. The release deed No.164 dated 19.6.2001 regarding the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 and mutation No.5562, on the basis of the said release deed, were illegal, null and void. Defendants No.1 to 3 were brothers of the plaintiffs, whereas, R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2009 2 defendant No.4 was nephew of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had executed a general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.5 to manage their property. The said general power of attorney was cancelled on 18.6.2001. The factum of cancellation of the general power of attorney was informed to defendant No.5. Despite this, defendant No.5 executed a release deed on behalf of the plaintiffs on 19.6.2001. Defendants, in their written, averred that defendant No.5 had executed the release deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 on the basis of general power of attorney executed in his favour by the plaintiffs. The power of attorney had never been cancelled by the plaintiffs nor any intimation in this regard had been sent to defendant No.5. Hence, the release deed had been validly executed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have got cancelled the said general power of attorney vide cancellation deed No.171 dated 18.4.2001? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs have intimated the same to the defendants before executing the release deed dated 19.6.2001? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs entitled for a decree as prayed for ? OPP 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2009 3 5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from this court ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by her own act and conduct ? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 8. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.2005. It was held that release deed No.614 dated 19.6.2001 was null and void and was not binding on the rights of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and mutation No. 5562 was also set aside. Defendants were restrained from alienating/transferring or creating any charge over the suit land and from interfering in the cultivating possession of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appeal was filed by defendants No.4 and 5 and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.4 and 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the plaintiffs had challenged release deed No.614 dated 19.6.2001 executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 on the basis of general power of attorney executed by the plaintiffs in his favour. The case of the plaintiffs is R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2009 4 that general power of attorney Ex.P-3, executed by them in favour of defendant No.2, was cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 18.6.2001 Ex.P-1. Plaintiff No.3 made a statement in favour of the defendants on 15.12.2001 and thus, the suit qua the share of plaintiff No.3 Parvati was dismissed by the trial Court. There is no dispute qua execution of general power of attorney by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.5 qua the suit land. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had been successful in proving the cancellation deed dated 18.6.2001 whereby they had cancelled the general power of attorney executed by them in favour of defendant No.5. Since the parties are closely related to each other, the Courts below have rightly held that defendant No.5 was duly informed qua the cancellation of the general power of attorney by the plaintiffs. However, despite the cancellation of the general power of attorney, defendant No.5 proceeded to execute release deed No.614 dated 19.6.2001 on behalf of plaintiff No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The said release deed was executed by defendant No.5 without any legal authority and hence, the same was not binding on the rights of plaintiffs No.1 and 2. 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 10, 2011 anita