BISSI Vs. SUCHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It will be useful to notice the following pedgree-table for the decision of this case :-

(2.) The property came to descendents from Tehal Singh. Mehar Singh owned 41 Kanals 1 Marla of land and according to his relations he died on May 7, 1988 without leaving any widow and issue. Sucha Singh is alleged to be his attorney and as attorney, by three sale deeds dated 25.4.1988, 27.4.1988 and 28.4.1988 he is alleged to have sold the entire land of Mehar Singh in favour of his own wife and son. Since the sale deeds were executed within the close proximity of death of Mehar Singh, his collaterals who were the next heirs in the absence of wife and children first filed a suit for declaration that the alleged power of attorney is a forged document and when they came to know that the sale deeds had already been executed, they filed a fresh suit on 16.5.1988 without loss of time for declaration that the sales made by the alleged attorney are null and void on the ground stated in the plaint and for restraining the attorney, his wife and son from further transferring the property or from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Along with the suit, an application for interim order of injunction was filed on which to start with interim injunction was granted but after hearing the opposite side, the trial Court came to the conclusion that till the date of death Mehar Singh was in possession and there was some evidence that Jeet Kaur was his wife. The plaintiffs had produced a copy of an order of Tehsildar correcting entries of Khasra Girdawari to show that Bakshish Singh was in possession, after the death of Mehar Singh, but the trial Court ignored the piece of evidence on the ground that stray entry could not prove continuous possession of Bakshish Singh on the land in dispute. It will be important to note that the trial Court did not prima facie come to finding that any of the defendants was in possession of the land in dispute after the death of Mehar Singh or from the date of alleged sale deeds. In view of the aforesaid findings, the application for interim order was rejected and the plaintiffs remained unsuccessful before the District Judge. That is how the plaintiffs have come to this Court in revision.

(3.) On consideration of the matter, I am of the view that Khasra Girdawari, which shows that Bakshish Singh was in possession of the land, has to be given effect to till the suit is tried and decided by the trial Court. The defendants who are respondents before me only wanted to show that after the death of Mehar Singh, Jeet Kaur was the next heir of Mehar Singh. Jeet Kaur has not come forward. There is no evidence produced to prima facie show that she was alive when Mehar Singh died. In any event, to save the property for the next heir whether it was Jeet Kaur or the plaintiffs the interim order deserves to be made, so that the property can be safe guarded from the hands of the defendants-respondents, who are not the next heirs until they establish their right under the power of attorney and sales made as attorney.