CHANDI RAM Vs. RESHMA DEVI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two regular second appeals which have been preferred against judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Jind (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate Court') whereby the appeal of the plaintiff was accepted and her suit for declaration and possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction was decreed while reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2006 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana (described hereinafter as 'the trial Court').

(2.) The plaintiff had sought a declaration to the effect that she is owner to the extent of 1/5th share in the suit land and sale deeds dated 3.6.1997 & 9.6.1997 are illegal, null and void being based upon fraud and misrepresentation. She had also prayed that possession of the suit land of her share be also ordered to be delivered to her. Still further, a prayer was also made for granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining Chandi Ram-defendant No. 2 from mortgaging or selling in any manner 1/2 share of the plaintiff's ownership.

(3.) It was pleaded that the plaintiff had got the aforementioned l/5th share in the land in dispute by way of judgment and decree dated 2.2.1988 passed in a civil suit titled as "Reshma v. Rajmal"; that since then she was owner thereof; that her husband-Rajmal was having two sons, namely, Rameshwar - defendant No. 3 and Sube Singh - respondent No. 4 from his first marriage; that the plaintiff was the second wife of Rajmal; that as a dispute used to exist between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 & 4 with regard to the suit land, she wanted to get her l/5th share separated; that for this purpose, she came to Narwana on 27.5.1997 where Ganga Singh defendant No. l met her; that defendant No. l, on the pretext of helping her, got a general power of attorney executed in his name and also got registered the same for selling, alienating or mortgaging the suit land; that she got a document for cancellation of power of attorney and informed defendant No. l on 30.5.1997; that the plaintiff is an illiterate lady and does not know the official proceedings; that despite the information about the cancellation of the power of attorney, defendant No. l executed a registered sale deed on 3.6.1997 in favour of defendant No. 2, who further executed a sale deed dated 9.6.1997 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 & 4 alienating half share of her land; that the power of attorney as well as both the sale deeds were illegal, null & void and a result of fraud and misrepresentation.