TRILOK NATH Vs. KHEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. Appl. No. 22815/2017 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. C.M. Appl. No.22817/2017 (under Order 33 read with Sec. 151 CPC) Counsel for the appellant says that appellant/plaintiff was allowed to sue as a pauper in the courts below. This application is therefore allowed. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. Appl. Nos. 22818/2017 (for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal), 22819/2017 (for condonation of delay of 16 days in re-filing the suit) For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal stands condoned. C.Ms. stand disposed of. RSA No. 165/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 22816/2017 (for stay) This Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure of, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit. Appellant/plaintiff impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 26.7.2014 and the first appellate court dated 1.12.2016; by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession, declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. The suit property is property bearing No. F-59A, Sudarshan Park, Delhi. Appellant/plaintiff sought the relief of declaration of his ownership of the suit property and for a decree of declaration of cancellation of the documents including the registered General Power of Attorney dated 25.9.2006 executed by him in favour of the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1/Khem Chand with respect to the transfer of the suit property. The appellant/plaintiff besides executing a registered General Power of Attorney had also executed sale documents of the same date viz. 25.9.2006 and in favour of the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 and which were notarized. Respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 had further transferred the suit property to one Smt. Kamla Devi by a registered sale deed dated 8.11.2007. Smt. Kamla Devi thereafter sold the suit property to the respondent no.3/Sh. Devender Chabra/defendant no.3 vide a registered sale deed dated 28.3.2011, and who though originally was not impleaded as a defendant in the suit and was subsequently impleaded as defendant no. 3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that he had not sold the suit property to the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 but had only taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and since after paying the loan the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1 had refused to cancel the documents including the registered General Power of Attorney, hence the subject suit was filed.

(2.) The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants. The case of the respondents/defendants was that the appellant/plaintiff had transferred the suit property by means of sale documents dated 25.9.2006 to the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 and had also executed a registered General Power of Attorney of the same date. This General Power of Attorney was registered at serial no. 22396 in Book no. IV, volume 11554 on pages 133 to 136 at the office of the Sub-Registrar-II, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The suit property thereafter was transferred by means of registered sale deed firstly to Smt. Kamla Devi on 8.11.2007 and thereafter to the present owner being respondent no. 3/Sh. Devender Chabra vide the sale deed dated 28.3.2011. It was denied that the appellant/plaintiff had even taken a loan from the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 or that the appellant/plaintiff had returned the loan to the respondent no. 1/defendant no.1. Suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.

(3.) After pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-