AJAY KUMAR Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of nine appeals i.e RSA No. 1241 of 2013 and RSA No. 578 to 585 of 2011, as in all these appeals, common questions of law on identical facts have been raised on behalf of the plaintiff -appellants, who are aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing their suit as well as the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court which has upheld the findings of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid judgments and decrees. However for convenience sake, facts are being taken from RSA No. 1241 of 2013. The appellants filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint comprising in plot no. 24 in the area of Basti Sheikh near Dussehra Ground, opposite Ghas Mandi, Jalandhar on the basis of a sale deed dated 12.7.1996 registered on 26.7.1996 along with consequential relief of possession for the suit land, after removal of the malba as described and detailed and shown in the site plan attached with the plaint.

(2.) IT was further averred that plaintiffs are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land for a valuable consideration vide aforesaid sale deed whereas the defendant on the basis of forged and fabricated documents occupied the property in dispute without their consent and thus is a trespasser and has no right to remain in the property in dispute. It was further averred that plaintiffs reported the matter to the police but to no effect. They also requested the defendant to hand over the possession of the property in dispute but he refused to do so. The land in dispute was agricultural land and the defendant raised illegal construction thereon during the pendency of the suit despite objections raised by them and thus they were entitled to the possession after removal of the malba on the said plot. Since the defendant did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs, necessity arose to file the instant suit. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit further alleging that the sale deed in question is forged and fabricated document which was executed by Dilbagh Rai through his attorney Ram Lal Gupta. It was further submitted that Dilbagh Rai was not known to the world since long and has not executed any power of Attorney as alleged and even if there was any Power of Attorney, the same is forged and fabricated document and the sale deed was wrongly executed by playing fraud. It was further averred that there was no allotment in favour of Dilbagh Rai and the auction/allotment if any was cancelled vide order dated 5.1.1961 by this Court. Thereafter again the matter went up to the High Court and the sale certificate which was fraudulently obtained by Dilbagh Rai was cancelled vide order dated 4.3.1977. According to the defendant, he had purchased the plot in question from one Janga Singh and constructed a pucca house over there. Dilbagh Rai was not entitled to any land as allotment in which he allegedly got the land has already been cancelled and even the sale certificate has been cancelled by the competent authority and, therefore, Dilbagh Rai was not competent to execute the Power of Attorney regarding the land in dispute. It was further submitted that Dilbagh Rai has expired and thus if the principal was not alive, the Power of Attorney is also not alive and therefore the sale deed or any document executed by the Attorney or such Power of Attorney is a null and void transaction. It was further stated that defendant was in possession of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs have no right to call him as trespasser. All other averments made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: