SAVITRI DEVI Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE regular second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 12.10.2010 and the appellate court dated 11.9.2012; by which the suit of the present appellant (plaintiff in the trial court) for mandatory injunction and damages has been dismissed. Dispute in the present case is with respect to the property no. C -1/33, admeasuring 50 sq. yds. situated on Kasara No. 305, New Ashok Nagar, Village Chilla, Saronda Bangar, Shahdara, Delhi. The case of the appellant -plaintiff is that she transferred rights in the suit property to the defendant by means of the documentation dated 4.10.93 being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney etc. against valuable consideration and possession was also delivered to the respondent -defendant, however, appellant -plaintiff claims that within two hours of the transfer of the rights in the suit property to the respondent -defendant, the respondent -defendant executed similar documents being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney etc by re -transferring the property in favour of the appellant -plaintiff. The subject suit therefore came to be filed claiming rights in the suit property by seeking mandatory injunction and damages.

(2.) (i) Learned counsel for the appellant is correct in arguing that the appellate court has fallen into an error in only examining the issue that the husband of the appellant -plaintiff was not competent to appear as an attorney inasmuch as the appellant -plaintiff could have appeared through an attorney who had knowledge of the facts. It is argued that appellate court only on this single basis has dismissed the appeal, although, the trial court had framed and decided various issues and had pronounced upon the same.

(3.) BEFORE I advert to the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant -plaintiff, it is necessary to refer to the conclusions which have been arrived at by the trial court that the alleged reverse documentation executed after 2 hours of the first set of documentation in favour of the appellant -plaintiff to claim that property has been re -transferred back to her is a false case of the appellant/plaintiff. These conclusions are: -