MEHTAB SINGH BALYAN Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER as well as first respondent are in dispute qua ownership and possession of a piece of land. Common case of both the parties is that Hari Kishan owned the land in question at some point of time.

(2.) WHEREAS Nirmla, R-1, claims right, title and interest in the land through a registered general power of attorney, agreement to sell and a will dated 5.5.2004 executed in her favour by one M.K.Tyagi who in turn claims right under Hari Kishan through similarly executed documents, petitioner claims a direct interest under Hari Kishan and relies upon certain documents stated to be executed by Hari Kishan on 7.8.1997 being a general power of attorney, agreement to sell, receipt etc. But, the documents relied upon by the petitioner are not registered documents.

(3.) THE land in question is a vacant land.