GURSHARAN KAUR Vs. KULDIP KAUR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. R.S.A. No. 4113 of 2010 titled Gursharan Kaur v. Kuldip Kaur and Anr. and R.S.A. No. 4443 of 2010 titled Sharanjit Singh v. Kuldip Kaur and Anr. because both these appeals have arisen out of a single suit. The suit was filed by Kuldip Kaur - Respondent No. 1 against both the Appellants i.e. Sharanjit Singh as Defendant No. 1 and Gursharan Kaur as Defendant No. 2. Appellants have been unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(2.) The Plaintiff alleged that she is owner of the suit property. Defendant No. 2 is sister of Plaintiffs husband. Defendant No. 1 is also brother of brother-in-law of Plaintiffs husband. Defendants, along with Surinder Singh, hatched conspiracy and forged and fabricated the Power of Attorney dated 09.06.2000 on behalf of Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No. 2. On the basis thereof, Defendant No. 2 executed sale deed dated 12.06.2000 registered on 14.06.2000 regarding the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 1. However, the said Power of Attorney was not executed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff continues to be owner of the suit property and is entitled to possession thereof. Possession of Defendant No. 1 over the suit property is illegal. Sale deed executed on the basis of forged Power of Attorney is also not binding on the Plaintiff. The alleged Power of Attorney does not bear signature or thumb impression of the Plaintiff. Earlier Surinder Singh was in permissive possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 took possession thereof from Surinder Singh without consent of the Plaintiff. First Information Report (FIR) dated 14.12.2000 has also been registered against the Defendants regarding the aforesaid forgery. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought relief of possession of the suit property and also recovery of Rs. 1,48,000/- as damages for illegal use and occupation of suit property and also sought mesne profits @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till delivery of possession.

(3.) Defendants filed separate but similar written statements. They broadly denied plaint allegations. It was pleaded that Plaintiff executed Power of Attorney dated 09.06.2000 in favour of Defendant No. 2, who, on the basis thereof, validly sold the suit property to Defendant No. 1. Relationship between the parties was admitted. Defendant No. 1 claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the suit property for consideration. Defendant No. 1 is in lawful possession of the suit property. Power of Attorney dated 09.06.2000 is legal and valid. Plaintiff herself executed the same and got it registered. Defendant is admittedly brother of Surinder Singh husband of Defendant No. 2. Various other pleas were also raised.