Pankaj Tomar Son of Kartar Singh Tomar Resident of House Vs. Shri Kartar Singh Tomar Son of Shri Bhim Singh Tomar (Retd. Ips) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1061894
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-25-2013
AppellantPankaj Tomar Son of Kartar Singh Tomar Resident of House
RespondentShri Kartar Singh Tomar Son of Shri Bhim Singh Tomar (Retd. Ips)
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.1553 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:25.07.2013 pankaj tomar son of kartar singh tomar, resident of house no.174, sector 6, panchkula...petitioner. versus shri kartar singh tomar son of shri bhim singh tomar (retd. ips).resident of house no.174, sector 6, panchkula, and others....respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice k. kannan ---- present: mr.sanjeev sharma, senior advocate, with mr.shekhar verma, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.arun palli, senior advocate, with mr.tushar sharma, advocate, for respondents 1, 2 and 5. mr.deepak girotra, assistant advocate general, haryana, for respondent no.4. ---- k.kannan, j. (oral) 1. the revision petition is against the order dismissing the application for injunction by the two courts below. the injunction was sought by the son against the father and his alienee in respect of a house property in which he admittedly had been in possession. in the suit, he has sought for a declaration that a gift purported to have been issued by the father acting as his power of attorney admittedly kumar sanjeev 2013.07.26 16:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh civil revision no.1553 of 2013 (o&m) -2- executed by the plaintiff will not grant him the authority to gift it to himself and to his other son. the validity of the gift is urged on a legal position of how a gift could not be carried out to an unnamed person in the power of attorney even if there existed a power to execute a document on his behalf.”2. the defendant admits the plaintiff's possession and he also appears to have filed his own suit for mandatory injunction against the plaintiff for removing him from a portion of the house in which he is in possession of.”3. to a query to the respondents as to why the plaintiff shall not be permitted to continue, the learned senior counsel for the defendant contends that there have been ugly incidents leading to criminal cases, one against the other and the riotous behaviour of the plaintiff cannot secure to him the benefit of a discretionary order of injunction. he also contends that, even according to the plaintiff, the gift deed cannot take effect, not for any reason that the document was brought about by fraud or coercion but the legal incident of whether a power of attorney holder will have a right to take a gift for himself and for an unnamed person so long as the power of attorney is admitted, till an adjudication is made regarding the validity of gift, the plaintiff cannot assume that the document is invalid. according to him, therefore, the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case to seek for injunction. kumar sanjeev 2013.07.26 16:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh civil revision no.1553 of 2013 (o&m) -3- 4. there surely thus exists some legal issue to be examined about the extent of power and how it will operate. even without going into the merits of the contention, i take the statement made by the senior counsel for the defendant that he will not dispossess the plaintiff by force and that the defendant will have his remedy worked out through court legal process in accordance with law.”5. the order passed by the court below stands modified and the civil revision is disposed of as above. (k.kannan) judge 25 07.2013 sanjeev kumar sanjeev 2013.07.26 16:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1553 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:25.07.2013 Pankaj Tomar son of Kartar Singh Tomar, resident of House No.174, Sector 6, Panchkula...Petitioner.

versus Shri Kartar Singh Tomar son of Shri Bhim Singh Tomar (Retd.

IPS).resident of House No.174, Sector 6, Panchkula, and others....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for respondents 1, 2 and 5.

Mr.Deepak Girotra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.4.

---- K.Kannan, J.

(Oral) 1.

The revision petition is against the order dismissing the application for injunction by the two courts below.

The injunction was sought by the son against the father and his alienee in respect of a house property in which he admittedly had been in possession.

In the suit, he has sought for a declaration that a gift purported to have been issued by the father acting as his power of attorney admittedly Kumar Sanjeev 2013.07.26 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.1553 of 2013 (O&M) -2- executed by the plaintiff will not grant him the authority to gift it to himself and to his other son.

The validity of the gift is urged on a legal position of how a gift could not be carried out to an unnamed person in the power of attorney even if there existed a power to execute a document on his behalf.”

2. The defendant admits the plaintiff's possession and he also appears to have filed his own suit for mandatory injunction against the plaintiff for removing him from a portion of the house in which he is in possession of.”

3. To a query to the respondents as to why the plaintiff shall not be permitted to continue, the learned senior counsel for the defendant contends that there have been ugly incidents leading to criminal cases, one against the other and the riotous behaviour of the plaintiff cannot secure to him the benefit of a discretionary order of injunction.

He also contends that, even according to the plaintiff, the gift deed cannot take effect, not for any reason that the document was brought about by fraud or coercion but the legal incident of whether a power of attorney holder will have a right to take a gift for himself and for an unnamed person so long as the power of attorney is admitted, till an adjudication is made regarding the validity of gift, the plaintiff cannot assume that the document is invalid.

According to him, therefore, the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case to seek for injunction.

Kumar Sanjeev 2013.07.26 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.1553 of 2013 (O&M) -3- 4.

There surely thus exists some legal issue to be examined about the extent of power and how it will operate.

Even without going into the merits of the contention, I take the statement made by the senior counsel for the defendant that he will not dispossess the plaintiff by force and that the defendant will have his remedy worked out through court legal process in accordance with law.”

5. The order passed by the court below stands modified and the civil revision is disposed of as above.

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25 07.2013 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2013.07.26 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh