R.S.A.No.1068 of 2002 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1068 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision 08.07.2010 Rajinder Singh and others ...... Appellants VERSUS Tejinder Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.H.S.Grewal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6, 8, 9 & 11. ***** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J: Appellant-plaintiff Rajinder Singh filed a suit for possession claiming that his father Mehma Singh, who expired on 01.06.1989 was the owner of the disputed suit land, and the respondents-defendants on the basis of a false and fabricated General Power of Attorney allegedly executed on behalf of Mehma Singh and in favour of one Jaswant Singh, got a false sale deed dated 28.05.1996 executed in his favour in respect of the land in question. It was prayed that the aforesaid documents, which are the result of fraud and misrepresentation, were not binding upon the appellants and were liable to be set aside. The suit was contested by the respondents on the ground that Mehma Singh was residing in Canada and he had validly executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of Jaswant Singh son of Mota Singh. The aforesaid document was a registered document and the said Jaswant R.S.A.No.1068 of 2002 (O&M) 2 Singh executed the sale deed in question in respect of the land in dispute legally. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the land in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 1(a) Whether the alleged General Power of Attorney dated 06.09.1985 and sale deed dated 28.05.1986 is null and void and liable to be set aside on the ground of deceit, fraud, misrepresentation and impersonation of the real person ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come into the Court with clean hands ? OPD 7. Relief. Vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.1998, the trial Court, held under issue No.1 that Gurubaksh Singh-respondent was a tenant of Mehma Singh and, therefore, the appellant-plaintiffs could not take the possession of the land in question except in due course of law. Under Issue No.1(a), it was held that the General Power of Attorney in favour of Jaswant Singh was a false and fabricated document and resultantly, the sale deed Ex.D2 dated 28.05.1986 was based upon fraud, misrepresentation and impersonation of real person. R.S.A.No.1068 of 2002 (O&M) 3 Under Issue No.4, the trial Court held that since the plaintiffs had filed this suit through a General Power of Attorney Gurbachan Singh and have failed to tender the original General Power of Attorney, executed in his favour by the plaintiffs in the Court and have not stepped into witness box to support their case, the suit was not maintainable. Moreover, the Court also noticed a fact that a Photostat copy of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney was placed on record and according to that also Gurbachan Singh was not authorized to contest the suit. In view of the aforesaid findings,the suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. Respondents-defendants preferred cross-objections on the issue of General Power of Attorney dated 06.09.1985, executed in favur of Jaswant Singh by Mehma Singh. During the pendency of the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, the judicial file was stolen and the same was reconstructed as per the orders of the District Judge, Hisar. Appellant-plaintiffs had also filed an application for allowing them to lead additional evidence with regard to General Power of Attorney, executed in favour of Gurubachan Singh. However, the aforesaid application was declined by the lower Appellate Court vide a separate order of even date i.e. 20.10.2001. Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiffs and accepted the cross-objections filed by the respondents. Still not satisfied, the appellants have preferred this appeal. On 22.04.2010, this case came up for motion hearing. During the course of hearings, this Court prima facie was of the opinion that the suit of the appellant-plaintiffs was rightly dismissed because the same was not filed by R.S.A.No.1068 of 2002 (O&M) 4 a competent person as the original G.P.A. of the person through whom this suit was filed was not produced on record of the case. It may also be noticed that the learned counsel for the appellants has not addressed any argument on the findings of the Lower Court under issue No.1 to the extent that respondents have been found to be tenant of Mehma Singh, therefore, the appellants could take the possession of the land in question only in due course of law. Before this Court, no argument has been raised on issue No.1 (a). Thus, no substantial question of law arises. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 08.07.2010 mamta-II