GURPAL SINGH Vs. KARANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 02.02.2001. As even an appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.03.2013, Gurpal Singh, one of the legal heirs of defendant No.3- Sham Kaur, is before this court vide this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In a suit filed by the plaintiffs, they prayed for a decree for injunction, restraining defendants No.1 & 2 from disconnecting the motor connection bearing A/c No.DA-2084 of 12.5 HP, installed in the land bearing khasra No.31//8(7-0), situated at village Duggal Kalan, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. It was maintained that plaintiffs had purchased a land measuring 72 kanals from defendants No.3 & 4, Babu and Bittu sons of Chatin Kaur daughter of Narinder Kaur vide sale deed dated 20.10.2004, along with a motor connection in question that was running in the name of defendant No.3. Defendant No.4, being the attorney of defendant No.3, had also executed an affidavit of an even date for transfer of the motor connection in the names of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also purchased a land measuring 64 kanals 0 marla from defendant No.4 and his brother Gurpal Singh vide another sale deed dated 25.11.2004. And, mutations pursuant to these sale deeds have since been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. Since then, plaintiffs have continuously been irrigating their fields with the aid of motor connection in question, as they had no other source of irrigation. For, during the pendency of the suit, motor connection was disconnected, plaintiffs amended the plaint and also prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction, directing defendants No.1 & 2 to restore the connection.

(3.) In a joint written statement, filed by defendants No.1 & 2, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had no locus standi, as they were not the consumers. In a separate written statement filed by defendant No.3, it was maintained that she never authorized defendant No.4 to alienate the motor connection. And, thus, defendant No.4 had no right to execute the affidavit dated 20.04.2005. Gurtej Singh was alleged to have obtained the power of attorney from defendant No.3 by fraud and subsequently, the alleged power of attorney was revoked on 13.07.2005.