PRITPAL SINGH KOHLI Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order X Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is at the stage where evidence of the plaintiff is being recorded. Statement ofpublic witness-1 was recorded on 24th August, 1998 and thathat ofpublic witness-2 was recorded on 26/08/1998. Thereafter the plaintiff produced himself aspublic witness-3. His statement was partly recorded on 20/09/1999. On 21st and 22/09/1999 further evidence was not recorded at the request of the plaintiff's counsel. Fresh dates of trial were fixed for 21st October and 1/11/1999. Before that, present application was filed and the prayer made in the application is that before recording further evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 be directed to appear in the court for recording her statement and her defence regarding revocation or cancellation of the General Power ofAttorney(ExCivil Procedure Code-3/1). The reason for moving such an application at this stage is stated in the application which would be properly understood after the nature of the main suit and the defence raised by the defendant No.1 in the written statement is appreciated.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the suit praying for decree of declaration to the effect that he is the exclusive and absolute owner in possession of plot of land bearing M-289 measuring approximately 400 sq.yrds situated at Greater Kailash-ll, New Delhi. The main averments made in the suit are that the property in suit (M-289 GK-II) was purchased by the defendant No.1 (Surjit Kaur) from DLF by registered sale deed dated 22/1/1974(Ex.P-1). The defendant No.1, Smt.Surjit Kaur appointed Shri Naveen Kumar as attorney by deed dated 16/4/1974 registered as document No.1823, inAdditionalBook No.4, Volume No.514 on page No.5 with Sub-Registrar, New Delhi on 17/04/1974(ExCivil Procedure Code-3/1). Smt. Surjit Kaur(through attorney Naveen Kumar) sold this property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 30/4/1974 in favour of Shri Pritpal Singh( ExCivil Procedure Code-3/2). The plaintiff assumed possession and has thereafter been paying the taxes to the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff also raised brick walls around the plot and covered it. Copy of the receipt is filed as Annexure D.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant No.1, the defendant no.1 has put up the defence that the General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Naveen Kumar(ExCivil Procedure Code-3/1) was revoked on 20/04/1974. We are not concerned with other defences at this stage.