SAGAR SINGH DAMOR Vs. DEEPAK SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant under Sec. 96 of the CPC against the order amounting to a decree dtd. 21/1/2020 passed in Civil Suit No.160-A/2019 by the 21st Additional District Judge, District Indore whereby two separate applications both under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by defendants 2 and 3/respondents 2 and 3 and defendant No.4/respondent No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Sec. 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter "the Act, 2002") have been allowed and consequently the plaint has been rejected.

(2.) The suit giving rise to this appeal has been filed by plaintiff for declaration of his title to the suit property which is a house constructed over plot No.1146 and 1147, Pheonix Town Colony, Village Kellod Hala, Tehsil and District Indore, for declaration that the power of attorneys dtd. 10/9/2014 allegedly executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 and the sale deed dtd. 17/6/2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on strength of such power of attorney is null and void and not binding upon him, for declaration that the loan obtained by defendant No.2 from defendant No.4 and mortgage of the suit property is not binding upon him, that defendant No.4 does not have any right to disposses him from the suit property or alienate the same in favour of any third person and for declaration that defendant No.4 does not have any right to recover any amount from the suit property.

(3.) The plaintiff has submitted that by two registered sale deeds both dtd. 24/3/2013 he had purchased two plots from its previous owner. On 12/8/2013 he entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 for raising construction over the plots. An agreement was also executed between them upon payment of Rs.9,00,000.00 by plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has eventually taken a sum of Rs.53,64,909.00 from plaintiff for construction of the house but has not completed the same reports regarding which were made by plaintiff to various authorities. Plaintiff then got suspicious and made enquiries from the office of Sub Registrar and found out that defendant No.1 has got executed two power of attorneys on 10/9/2014 allegedly executed by him. Plaintiff has neither signed upon them nor has affixed his thumb impressions thereupon. The alleged power of attorneys are forged and fabricated and have been got manufactured by defendant No.1 by impersonation. On their strength defendant No.1 has executed a registered sale deed on 17/6/2015 in favour of defendant No.2 with respect to the suit property.