SUCHA SINGH SIDHU Vs. CHAMKAUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in present petition is to the order dtd. 16/1/2018 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur, in Civil Suit No.2048 of 2013 titled 'Sucha Singh Sidhu @ Amit Sidhu Vs. Chamkaur Singh' whereby an application (Annexure P-6) moved by petitioner (plaintiff before the trial Court) under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for impounding the original Power of Attorney dtd. 20/8/2009 Ex.PZ and payment of stamp duty and penalty thereof, was dismissed.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, Sucha Singh-petitioner instituted a civil suit through his duly appointed Power of Attorney Smt. Harjinder Kaur, his mother against the respondent (defendant before the trial Court), for possession and permanent injunction as owner of the suit property measuring 2 kanals marked as 'ABCD' in the site plan and fully described in head note of the plaint, inter alia pleading that Jarnail Singh, predecessor-in interest of the petitioner was in settled possession of a suit property a'taur' as shown in site plan attached with the plaint, who had purchased from Punjab Government and had become owner of the same. It is pleaded that Jarnail Singh executed a Will dtd. 5/3/2007 in favour of the petitioner and as such he became owner in possession of the disputed property. It is further alleged by the petitioner that in his absence when he was in a foreign country, the respondent forcibly entered on the part of the suit property and made illegal construction of a house and rooms as detailed in the site plan. He requested the respondent to hand over the possession of the suit property but he did not accede to his request which necessitated him to file the present suit.

(3.) Respondent-defendant filed written statement and resisted the suit of the petitioner stating that Jarnail Singh, father of the petitioner sold the suit property to him vide agreement dtd. 5/11/2003 after receiving full sale consideration and also executed Will dtd. 30/3/2005 and General Power of Attorney dtd. 31/3/2005 in his favour with his free will and consent, and thereafter, respondent entered into an agreement for construction of a house with Jaswinder Singh, the contractor and Jarnail Singh also attested the said agreement and participated in his home warming ceremony. The respondent therefore pleaded that Jarnail Singh had left with no right, title in the suit property. The execution of Will dtd. 5/3/2007 by Jarnail Singh in favour of the petitioner is forged and fictitious document, having no effect on his right and interest in the suit property. Besides above, respondent also pleaded that suit of the plaintiff is time barred, and is also hit by the principle of constructive res judicata. Further, the power of attorney in favour of Harjinder Kaur is not legal and valid as it is not duly attested and properly stamped as required under the Act and is inadmissible in the evidence.