JAGBIR SINGH Vs. JAI SINGH PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for possession, recovery of mesne profits / damages for use and occupation, declaration and permanent injunction was filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents No. 2 to 5 in CM No. 10131/2008 IN RFA (OS) No. 47/2008 Page No. 1 of 11 respect of the property bearing Municipal No. 35b, Village Shahpur Jat, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as, 'the suit property' ). Respondent No. 1 / the original plaintiff claims to have left for united States of America (USA) in the year 1980 leaving behind the house in the care and possession of one Master Hari Chand Kadian, relative. The son of respondent No. 1 visited India in February, 1990 when a marriage was finalized and thereafter solemnized with one Kumari Sneh Singh, daughter of respondent no. 2. The marriage, however, did not succeed. Respondent No. 1 has alleged that respondent No. 2 in collusion with the appellant and respondents No. 3 to 5 illegally took possession of the house built on the land and that they had even forged and fabricated documents alleging that respondent No. 1 had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant. The appellant appointed a new attorney and thereafter suit was filed in the year 1991.

(2.) THE suit unfortunately dragged on for a very long time and was ultimately dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- against the appellant in terms of the judgment and decree dated 19. 05. 2008.

(3.) THE defence of the appellant in the suit was that he was the bona fide purchaser without notice in respect of the suit property from respondent No. 2 on the strength of a Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by CM no. 10131/2008 IN RFA (OS) No. 47/2008 Page No. 2 of 11 respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2. The suit was not contested by respondent No. 2 and it was left to the appellant to establish that any Power of Attorney was executed in favour of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1. The appellant failed to establish such a Power of Attorney. The findings of learned Single judge are against the appellant practically on all issues and it is found that the appellant had failed to establish any Agreement to Sell in his favour by respondent No. 1 through any duly authorised Attorney. The damages were awarded to respondent No. 1 against the appellant at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month from 01. 10. 1991 as the appellant had no right, title or interest to occupy the suit property. These were the damages claimed originally at the stage of filing of the suit.