SWARAN KAUR Vs. JAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Santa Singh executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 3.11.1966 in favour of his wife smt. Gurnam Kaur. Smt. Gurnam Kaur, on 20. 3.1975, executed a registered sale deed in favour of her daughter smt. Swaran Kaur, who is appellant no. 1 in this appeal. On 20. 3.1975, Santa singh filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 20. 3.1975 executed by his wife Gurnam Kaur in favour of Smt. Swaran Kaur is void and illegal. It was also alleged that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently and no consideration was passed on. In the said suit, gurnam Kaur was arrayed as defendant no. 2. Gurnam Kaur in her statement stated that her signature on the sale deed was obtained under the influence of certain drug administered to her. The trial court decreed the suit filed by Santa Singh. Defendant-appellant no. 1, thereafter, preferred the first appeal before the first Appellate Court. After filing the appeal, appellant no. 1 smt. Swaran Kaur executed sale deed in respect of property in dispute in favour of defendant-appellant nos. 2 to 8. The first Appellate Court was of the view that the sale deed dated 20. 3.1975 was executed for a consideration and was a valid document. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant no. 1 was allowed. Aggrieved, plaintiff-respondent preferred a second appeal before the high Court. The High Court was of the view that under the deed of Power of attorney, Smt. Gurnam Kaur could alienate the property only when there was a necessity. Since there was no necessity for sale, the sale deed executed by gurnam Kaur in favour of Swaran Kaur was void and illegal. The High Court also found that no consideration was paid to smt. Gurnam Kaur or Santa Singh by smt. Swaran Kaur for alleged sale deed dated 20. 3.1975. It is on these findings, the second appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was restored. It is against the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 civil Procedure Code, was not justified in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court and, therefore, the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. This argument has no merit. In this case, what we find is the interpretation of document i. e. Power of Attorney dated 3.11.1966 executed by Santa Singh in favour of Smt. Gurnam Kaur. An interpretation of document constitutes a substantial question which was required to be decided by the high Court. Further, it was found that there is no legal evidence to show that consideration money was paid to Smt. Gurnam Kaur.

(3.) It was then urged that the Power of attorney does not postulate that it is only on the event of necessity the Power of attorney holder would alienate the property.