DALJIT SINGH Vs. UTTAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated Nov. 25, 1991, passed by Additional District Judge, Kapurthala whereby he directed that status quo regarding possession be maintained and permitted the parties to the lis to move an application before the trial Court for appointment of a Commission when the crop is ripe for cutting; that the Commission will cut the crop and deposit the sale proceeds in the Court which will be disbursed to the persons, who will be entitled to get the same after the decision of the case.

(2.) The facts :-

(3.) The order passed by the first appellate Court is far from satisfactory. The learned appellate Judge did not try to comprehend the nature of the dispute between the parties. The undisputed facts, stated above, were gathered from the parties counsel at the time of hearing of the appeal. These in unmistakable terms establish that the husband and wife colluded in order to deprive Smt. Uttami, defendant-respondent, of her valuable land. Smt. Surjit Kaur is the wife of Daljit Singh, who was a plaintiff in Suit No. 789 of 22.10.1990 in which he sought declaration that he was owner of 1/2 share out of land measuring 74 Kanals 7 Marlas owned by Smt. Uttami. Smt. Uttami was not served in the suit, but her alleged general attorney-Smt. Surjit Kaur wife of the plaintiff, appeared before the Trial Court and confessed the claim of her husband. It goes without saying that Smt. Uttami was not sued through her general attorney. She purported to act as an attorney of Smt. Uttami under the general power of attorney, which had been cancelled by Smt. Uttami by a registered deed of cancellation dated November 7, 1990. She was duly intimated about the cancellation of general power of attorney executed on October 10, 1990 in her favour. Even otherwise, where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration. Smt. Surjit Kaur was not the general attorney of Smt. Uttami, defendant-respondent, on the date when she made a statement in the trial Court confessing the claim of her husband - Daljit Singh. The passing of the decree in favour of Daljit Singh is nothing else but the result of collusion between the husband and wife whereby they wanted to defraud the real owner of her property, who is none else but a helpless old lady looking at the judicial institution with a question mark on her face. The facts speak for themselves. Had the appellate Judge tried to appreciate the facts, he would not have made the error revealed in his judgment. Court's assistance must have been provided to her to protest her property so that she could peacefully enjoy the usufructs of her property and spend the evenings of her life comfortably and free from any financial difficulties.