SATPAL SINGH SETHI Vs. GURSEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for cancellation of sale deeds, declaration of title and possession in respect of property no.H-7, N.D.S.E.-I, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred to as "the suit property"). The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the appellant's suit was dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case leading to the filing of the suit by the appellant herein( hereinafter to be referred as "the plaintiff") have been noticed by the trial Court in paras no.3 to 5 of its judgment and the same are re-produced below:

(3.) Summons of the suit were not served upon defendants 1 and 2, who were living in Thailand, but defendant no.3 entered appearance on their behalf also as their attorney and one advocate also appeared for all the three on 02/05/90 but thereafter that advocate disappeared. Then the trial Court noticed that that advocate's vakalatnama was not on record and so fresh summons were ordered to be served on defendants 1 and 2. Trial Court's record does not show service of summons on these two defendants. However, on 22/02/91 again the advocate who had earlier appeared on behalf of defendants 1-3 on 02/05/90 appeared and filed a written statement which was signed by defendant no.3 for himself and as attorney of defendants 1 and 2. The defence of these defendants was that Shri Raghubir Singh had not sold the suit property through Shri Kulwant Singh to the plaintiff's father nor had he executed any Power of Attorney in favour Shri Kulwant Singh authorising him to sell the suit property to the plaintiff's father. It was also pleaded in the alternative that since even after execution of the alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's father by Shri Raghubir Singh through his said attorney plaintiff's father had not exercised any right or authority in respect of the suit property and the property continued to be in possession and control of Shri Raghubir Singh the title in favour of plaintiff's, if any, was lost "through adverse possession and reverted back to the real owner ". Another objection taken by these defendants was that suit for declaration without the consequential relief of possession was not maintainable. Regarding the sale deed purporting to have been executed by Shri Raghubir Singh through defendant no. 3 as attorney in favour of defendant no.4 Mrs. Kusumlata Khajanchi, the stand of these defendants was that that was the validly executed sale deed through a lawfully constituted attorney of Shri Raghbir Singh. It was denied that the Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no. 3 Joginder Lal, pursuant to which defendant no. 3 had executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant no. 4, was a forged document.