(1.) By this common order, RSA No. 2841 of 2013 and RSA No. 2843 of 2013 are being disposed of as both these Regular Second Appeals arise out of the same judgments of the Courts below. RSA No. 2843 of 2013 had to be filed by the plaintiff due to dismissal of counter-claim of defendant-respondent no. 2 so that the finding against respondent no. 2 whose defence was based on the similar ground as raised by plaintiff may not operate as res judicata. It is worthwhile to mention that respondent no. 2 has not filed RSA himself to challenge the judgments and decrees of the courts below.
(2.) The suit land was owned by Thakar Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of appellant and respondents no. 1 and 2. Thakar Singh died in Canada on 21.03.1997. It was stated that Thakar Singh had executed a Will dated 04.01.1989 in favour of his sons, namely; the appellant-plaintiff and respondents no. 1 and 2 in equal shares, in his sound disposing mind. The appellant, thus, became the owner of 1/3rd share in the property left by Thakar Singh. The appellant came to India and learnt that respondentdefendant no. 1 got six sale deeds dated 04.05.1994, 18.5.1994, 25.05.1994, 08.08.1994 and 14.11.1994 on the basis of alleged general power of attorney of Thakar Singh in favour of defendantrespondent no. 3, who is a close relative of defendant no. 3. The power of attorney was attacked as forged and fabricated document nor there was any occasion for Thakar Singh to execute such a power of attorney. Even no consideration of these sale deeds was paid to Thakar Singh. In any case the property held by Thakar Singh was joint Hindu family ancestral coparcenery property in which the appellant had a right by birth and the sale deeds in question are not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. The sale deeds were also attacked as without legal necessity and without consideration.
(3.) Major Singh defendant-respondent no. 2 also filed written statement admitting the case set up by the plaintiff.