Judgment:
R.S.A.
No.3747 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No.: R.S.A.
No.3747 of 2012 Date of Decision : December 10, 2012 Guru Teg Bahadur Builders and others ...Appellants versus Governing Council Khalsa College Society, Amritsar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL * * * Present : Mr.S.K.
Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhishek Vig, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for respondent no.1 – Caveator.
* * * L.N.MITTAL, J.
(Oral) : Defendants no.1 to 3, having lost in both the courts below, are in second appeal.
Defendants no.2 to 4 are partners of defendant no.1.
Suit was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff Khalsa College Society against appellants and proforma respondents no.2 to 4.
Plaintiff, by way of two Powers of Attorney, authorized defendants no.1 to 4 to sell 4998 sq.
yds.
land of the plaintiff.
However, defendants no.1 to 4, on the basis of said Powers of Attorney, sold some other land of the plaintiff to defendants no.5 and 6, R.S.A.
No.3747 o”
2. which was not mentioned in the Powers of Attorney.
The plaintiff filed suit for possession of the said land measuring 110 sq.
yds.
Defendants no.1 to 4 contested the suit, whereas defendants no.5 and 6 were proceeded against ex-parte.
Defendants no.1 to 4 alleged that they had been authorized to sell the suit land and they validly executed the sale deed of the suit land in favour of defendants no.5 and 6.
Both the courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
Feeling aggrieved, defendants no.1 to 3 have filed this second appeal.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
It has been found by both the courts below that defendants no.1 to 4 had not been authorized to sell the suit land by the plaintiff.
This fact becomes clear from concurrent perusal of the Powers of Attorney and other documents placed on record.
Site plans were also annexed with the Powers of Attorney, but even ignoring the site plans, description of the land has been given fully in the Powers of Attorney.
When the said description is compared with the site plan of the spot produced by the plaintiff, it clearly reveals that defendants no.1 to 4 had not been authorized to sell the suit land.
The suit land falls outside the land mentioned in the Powers of Attorney.
Consequently, defendants no.1 to 4 had no authority to sell the suit land on behalf of plaintiff to defendants no.5 and 6.
Admittedly, plaintiff is owner of the suit land.
Sale deed executed by defendants no.1 to 4 as Attorney of plaintiff in favour of defendants no.5 and 6 is, therefore, R.S.A.
No.3747 o”
3. invalid and null and void being without authority of the plaintiff.
Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to this effect is fully justified by the documentary evidence on record.
The said finding is not shown to be perveRs.or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence.
Therefore, the said finding does not call for interference.
Counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff had received sale consideration from defendants no.1 to 4 for 4998 sq.
yds.
land, for which Powers of Attorney were given, but out of the said land, plaintiff itself sold 766 sq.
yds.
land through registered sale deeds, which was sold out of the land given to the appellants.
The contention cannot be accepted being completely beyond pleadings and evidence.
No such plea has been taken in the written statement.
Moreover, this plea would not validate the sale of the suit land, which has been made without authority.
The appellants may have their other remedy, if available under law, regarding the alleged sale made by the plaintiff out of the authorized land, but it has no bearing on the instant lis.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal.
No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal.
The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed.
December 10, 2012 ( L.N.MITTAL ) monika JUDGE