HARDEV SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar and the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rupnagar.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Plaintiff was the owner in possession to the suit property to the extent of his share. His case is that Defendant/Respondent No. 1 -Parmajit Kaur (for short 'Respondent No. 1') in connivance with the witnesses forged a General Power of Attorney dated 22.11.1993 (herein after called 'GPA') in her favour. Respondent No. 1 is a close relation of the Plaintiff. She sold the alleged property in favour of Respondent No. 2. The Appellant after coming to know about the aforesaid forged G.P.A and the sale deeds lodged F.I.R No. 77 dated 12.09.1996 at police Station Kurali against the Respondents. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed suit No. 246 of 24.10.2000 seeking a relief of declaration to the effect that the G.P.A and the sale deeds executed by the Defendants are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the Plaintiff. On an earlier occasion, the Plaintiff had also filed a similar suit which was dismissed in default on 23.09.1998. The application for restoration of the suit was also dismissed in default on 26.07.2000. On notice, the Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement, it has been stated that the said suit was not maintainable as earlier the Plaintiff filed civil suit No. 245 dated 28.03.1998, which was dismissed in default on 23.09.1998 by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rupnagar. This suit was dismissed under IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code'). The application for restoration was also dismissed on 26.07.2000. Defendant/Respondent No. 2 -Kanta Devi (for short 'Respondent No. 2) had also filed written statement and took a plea that the suit was not within limitation. She had made full inquiry about the power of attorney and then purchased the property from Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration of the suit land. It was further pleaded that the sale deed dated 22.02.1994 is legal and valid document. Defendant/Respondent No. 3 -Paramjit Singh (for short 'Respondent No. 3') filed his written statement raising the preliminary objections that the suit is barred under Order 11 Rule 2 of the code. It was further pleaded that Plaintiff executed power of attorney in favour of Respondent No 1 and Respondent No. 1 on the basis of said power of attorney executed sale deed dated 22.02.1994 in favour of Respondent No. 2 for consideration. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 also sold the suit land to Respondent No. 3, vide sale deed dated 28.04.1994 for consideration and mutation has already been sanctioned. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers for consideration and without notice from any quarter. The trial Court framed following issues vide orders dated 03.12.2001 and 03.12.2002:

(3.) WHETHER the suit is barred by res judicata ? OPD