SUMAN CHAND Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property in dispute is under physical possession of the petitioner. The documents i.e. the power of attorney and the agreement to sell are fictitious and fraudulent documents. He further stated that even if these documents are taken into consideration, still share of the petitioner comes to 51% and that of the respondents 49% in the suit property.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the power of attorney and the agreement to sell and other documents have been executed by the petitioner. No fraud could have been committed on her as she is an educated lady. He further stated that only it is slip of pen where purchase of stamp papers has been shown as 18.3.1996 while the power of attorney has been attested by the Sub Registrar at the time of registration on 15.3.1996.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned order/judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court.