SURJIT BEHL Vs. JASPAL KAUR BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 25/7/2019 passed by the learned II Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.91-A/2014 whereby the suit was partly allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaration of title along-with injunction against the respondents. As per the plaintiff, the land of 0.094 hectares bearing Kh.No.20/34 equivalent to 10115 sqft which was earlier numbered as 20/31 20/18 in revenue records was purchased by the appellant by sale deed dtd. 25/4/1982 and since then the plaintiff claimed that he is in possession and ownership of the said land. It was pleaded that in the year 2003 two persons tried to disturb the possession for which a Civil Suit No.2-A/2009 was filed against Ravindra Kaur and others, which is pending. The plaintiff contended that she is an old lady residing at Indore and since she was tired of litigation as such in respect of sale of remaining of land of Kh.No.20/34 admeasuring 7800 sqft, she gave a power of attorney to defendant No.2 Satpal Singh Bhatia by registered general power of attorney dtd. 6/9/2008. During the course of litigation of Civil Suit No.2-A/2009 (Surjieet Kaur Versus Ravinder Kaur and others) a direction was issued for demarcation in respect of part of other land and accordingly when the commissioner's report was filed along-with the copy of sale deed 31/3/2010, for the first time she came to know that defendant/respondent no.2 herein Satpal Singh Bhatia has sold the entire land of 10115 sqft to his mother Smt. Jaspal Kaur Bhatia (since deceased). Thereafter certain police reports were made and cancellation of sale deed was agreed to be done but eventually it was not done. Eventually on 29/5/2014 a notice was served for cancellation of the sale deed. It was further contended that the sale consideration was not paid to the plaintiff/appellant and by the Power of Attorney dtd. 6/9/2008 only 7800 sqft of land was entitled to be sold whereas the defendant has sold the entire land of 10115 sqft by sale deed dtd. 31/3/2010, which is void. It was further contended that the Power of Attorney was confined only to sell 7800 sqft whereas the remaining 2315 sqft of land was not authorised to be sold or partitioned. Therefore, the entire sale of land of 10115 sqft is a nullity. Consequently the suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed dtd. 31/3/2010 and for declaration that the plaintiff is in possession and ownership of land bearing Kh. No.20/34 admeasuring 10115 sqft of land. Further permanent injunction was also sought for.

(3.) The respondents filed the written statement wherein it was stated that the land bearing Kh.No.20/34 was sold in its entirety on 31/3/2010 and the demarcation was carried out by the plaintiffs itself in 2003, 2008 and 2012 which shows that0.073 hectares equivalent to 7800 sqft exists at the spot and on rest of land, litigation was pending. It is further stated that the plaintiff had knowledge that no land is available to the extent of 10115 sqft., as described in the map and part of it is under litigation, as such, under the circumstances, the registered power of attorney was executed. Further it was stated that after executing the sale deed dt. 31/3/2010, the defendant was put into possession and she is holding the possession of the land. It was contended that by misrepresentation and suppression of such fact, the suit was filed. It was further pleaded that at the request of the plaintiff itself, the actual available land on the spot i.e., 7800 sqft was agreed to be sold and it was agreed that at the time of registry, the sale deed of the entire land of 10115 sqft would be executed. It was stated that the entire sale consideration was paid to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that when the power of attorney was executed in 2008, the entire right to manage the sale transaction was conferred to the defendant and the plaintiff had received sale consideration in its entirety. It was further pleaded that the power of attorney was never cancelled at any point of time, which still exists. It was pleaded that the sale consideration of Rs.18,80,000.00 was paid to the plaintiff by way of Cheque which was received by the plaintiff/appellant in her Bank Account. Therefore, the plaintiff was in know of the fact that the sale-deed was executed on 31/3/2010. It was further pleaded that another case was pending in between Appellant Surjit Kaur and Ravindra Kaur wherein an application was also filed by the defendant to make him a party. Therefore, the plaintiff has knowledge about the sale. With respect to the Cheque, it was further pleaded that the cheque was received without any objection on 30/3/2010. Since the Cheque was not en-cashed in time as such the date was changed by making initials and on 21/10/2010 Cheque bearing no. 385321 was given to the plaintiff. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiff has knowledge about the sale deed dtd. 31/3/2010 and the pleading to the effect that she came to know of the sale deed on 24/9/2012 is wrong. In respect of the power of attorney to sell the land to the extent of 7800 sqft, it was pleaded that only that much of land was available, therefore, the power of attorney was given to that extent and as per the request of the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to take-over the litigation which was pending and consequently the power of attorney was given to defendant no.2 Satpal Singh. It was stated that the husband of the plaintiff namely Gurudeep Singh who is power of attorney holder of the plaintiff being husband requested for purchase of land of 10155 sqft, therefore, at his request instead of 7800 sqft sale deed was executed for 10115 sqft of land. It was further pleaded that the suit was beyond period of limitation and it is not tenable.