Judgment:
Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2476 of 2012 (O&M) [1]. ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2476 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:24.01.2014 Harjit Singh alias Babbu Gumtalia ...Appellant Versus Tejinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr. A.S.Bhatti, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This appeal is filed by defendant no.2 against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit of the plaintiff has been decreed to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit property and the sale deed dated 06.05.2003 has been set aside. In short, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 14 kanals 09 marlas, situated in village Pandori Warraich, Tehsil and District Amritsar; the alleged General Power of Attorney dated 17.04.2003 registered in the office of the Sub Regisrar, Majitha, on 05.05.2003 in favour of Amrik Singh S/o Karnail Singh was not executed by him and is not binding on his rights and the alleged sale deed dated 06.05.2003 executed by Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2476 of 2012 (O&M) [2]. ***** defendant no.1 as his attorney in favour of defendant no.2 (the appellant herein) and the mutation no.5593 sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed dated 06.05.2003 are also illegal, null and void and are liable to be cancelled. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendants no.1 to 9 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly. The plaintiff has alleged that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute by way of inheritance along with defendants no.12 to 16 as a co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share in the land measuring 27 Kanals 01 Marla as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99. Defendant no.2 is a big transporter of the city who approached him to sell his share of the suit land, to which he refused. Thereafter, the defendants hatched a conspiracy to usurp the land of the plaintiff and on 03.05.2003, at about 9.00 a.m., Mangal Singh and Mohinder Singh alias Golla, came to his house and asked him to accompany them to the bus stand of village Pandori. On reaching the Pandori Bus Stand, they purchased a bottle of liquor and insisted upon him to drink the same with them. When the plaintiff was under the influence of liquor, they put him in the three-wheeler and took him to Gurdeep Singh alias Deep Manawalia, at some place near Bus Stand, Amritsar, where some other unidentified persons were also present. Then, the appellant came on the spot and asked the plaintiff to sign on certain blank papers and stamp papers. The plaintiff refused to sign the papers. On this, defendant no.2 threatened him with dire consequences as he took out his revolver and put it on his head. The plaintiff, in order to save his life, signed the papers. Defendant no.2, in conspiracy with the other defendants, forged a bogus Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2476 of 2012 (O&M) [3]. ***** General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no.1 and got it registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Majitha and on the basis of the said forged General Power of Attorney, got the sale deed executed and registered from defendant no.1 in his favour. In the written statement the defendants denied all the averments. The plaintiff filed replication and reiterated his stand taken in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land?.OPP.
2. Whether the general power of attorney dated 17.04.2003 in favour of Amrik Singh is illegal, null and void?.OPP.
3. Whether the general power of attorney is a result of fraud, coercion and undue influence exercised by defendants no.1 to 9?.OPP.
4. Whether the sale deed dated 06.05.2003 in favour of defendant no.2 is illegal, null and void?.OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?.OPP.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?.OPP.
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?.OPD.
8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit?.OPD.
9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?.OPD. Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2476 of 2012 (O&M) [4]. ***** 10. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?.OPD.
11. Relief.”
. Both the parties led their oral as well documentary evidence in support of their case. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit, against which only defendant no.2 filed the appeal which too has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on 09.11.2011 after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record holding that the alleged General Power of Attorney was not executed by the plaintiff voluntarily and in order to reach that conclusion, various reasons have been given in its judgment. In this appeal, the appellant has failed to frame any substantial question of law because all the questions which have been framed are questions of fact which have been duly proved before the Courts below after minutely examining the evidence brought on record. Thus, in these circumstances, in the absence of any question of law, much-less substantial, having been raised in this appeal by the counsel for the appellant, there is no reason for this Court to disturb the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Dismissed. January 24, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE