RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. LALIT MOHAN RAJPROHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.3 of the Civil Suit No.543 of 2009 +tled as "Lalit Mohan Rajprohat v. Dushyant Bansal and others", dismissed on 17/1/2011 by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jalandhar, is before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order dtd. 15/11/2016 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, remanding the appeal (CA bearing CNR N: PBJL01- 011051-2012) filed by the plain+ff (respondent No.1 herein) and allowing the applica+on under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and further direc+ng the trial Court to allow the amendment in pleadings, if sought by the plain+ff.

(2.) In order to avoid confusion, the par+es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that as per the case set up by the plain+ff - Lalit Mohan Rajprohat, Smt. Chanchal Rani and Shri Sanjiv Gula+ were earlier recorded to be the owner of the land measuring 20 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.13142 situated at Mohalla Gobind Nagar, Jalandhar in Jamabandi for the year 1989-90. Chanchal Rani executed a general power of attorney dtd. 7/11/1990 regarding 10 marlas of the said land in favour of Vikas Chhabra & Manmohan Singh. Sanjiv Gula+ had also executed a general Power of attorney in favour of Chanchal Rani and by virtue of the same, she further executed special power of attorney dtd. 26/9/1994 regarding the share of Sanjiv Gula+ in favour of Vikas Chhabra & Manmohan Singh. By virtue of these power of attorneys in their favour in respect of total 20 marlas of land, Vikas Chhabra & Manmohan Singh entered into an agreement to sell of the said land in favour of plain+ff - Lalit Mohan Rajprohat and later, executed two separate sale deeds dtd. 30/4/1996 for 10 marlas each for considera+on and then name of the plain+ff was reflected in jamabandi for the year 1999-2000. It was alleged by the plain+ff that defendant No.1 - Dushyant Bansal (respondent No.2 herein) executed a sale deed dtd. 12/4/2005 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 (respondent No.3 and appellant herein) and on the basis of said sale deed, they tried to take forcible possession of the suit property. Plain+ff challenged the sale deed dtd. 12/4/2005 to be the result of fraud, fabrica+on and mis-representa+on. Though the matter was reported to the police, but it was alleged that in connivance with the police, defendant Nos.2 and 3 succeeded in taking illegal possession of the suit property. Plain+ff prayed for declaring the sale deed dtd. 12/4/2005 as null and void.