DALIP KUAR Vs. TARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARMA , father of respondents No. 1 and 2 executed a general power of attorney in favour of Karma son of Jowala on 15.1.1975. Karma, thereafter, executed two sale deeds as attorney of Dharma on 20.1.1975 in favour of the appellants No. 1 to 4. Dharma died on 1.2.1975. On 6.2.1975, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit No. 14 of 1977 in the Court of Sub Judge I Class, Nakodar for declaration to the effect that the said respondents No. 1 and 2 who were plaintiffs in the suit were the owners in possession of the suit land and a house situated thereon by way of inheritance from their father Dharma and in the alternative, they claimed possession on the said suit property. They contend that appellants No. 1 to 4 were threatening to obtain possession and on enquiry they came to know that Dharma deceased had executed a general power of Attorney in favour of Karma respondent No. 3 who subsequently sold the suit property to defendant-appellants No. 1 to 4, they contend that no such mukhtaranama was made by Dharma and the sale deeds were also forged and were not genuine documents. This they came to know because the false statement made by appellants No. 1 to 4 and respondent No. 3 and the said statement is wrong and incorrect and that if any General Power of attorney of the alleged sale deeds are proved they are forged and genuine documents. It is also contended that Dharma had a great love and affection for his two daughters respondents No. 1 and 2. He had also executed a registered will on 29.5.1969 in lieu of rendering all kinds of services to him and in lieu of his love and affection for his daughters and they are the heirs on the basis of this will also. They also contend that the general power of attorney and the two alleged sale deeds do not bear the thumb impressions of said Dharma who remained seriously ill for the last two months and remained unconscious for the last one month, and that some other person must have been produced by respondent No. 3 to execute and present documents that is general power of attorney and that the alleged sale deed do not mention any sale consideration in both.

(2.) IN short respondents No. 1 and 2 denied the execution of power of attorney and the documents and also contend that they are forged. They also contend that there was fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and pressure and these things must have been done in the following way: that respondent No. 3 made up his mind to deprive the plaintiffs and Dharma of the entire land in dispute and get this land free of any payment. Had he brought some attesting witnesses from this very village Bal Hukmi, the fraud would have come to light but in order to achieve his object, he might have brought Dharma deceased from his village to Nakodar to execute a will in favour of the daughters and instead of will he got executed a general power of attorney in his own favour authorising him to do various acts in the pending cases filed by him and filed against him and also got authority to mortgage and make a sale of his land. It is also contended that the recitals in the power of attorney are not correct and then in order to avoid his coming to the knowledge some other persons must have been produced before the Sub Registrar where some relevant part of the documents is read and the thumb impressions are taken in the Sub Registrar's room where officials sit and take thumb impressions of the executant and the witnesses and there it is never read and explained to them. These are the particulars of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and undue pressure.

(3.) THE learned Sub Judge, Nakodar dismissed the suit. The appellants thereupon filed civil appeal No. 15 of 1977 which was decided by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The learned Additional District Judge framed additional issues and ordered the case to be sent back to the trial court under Order 41 Rule 25 C.P.C with a direction to record evidence on the additional issues framed and to submit the report within a period of four months. The trial court submitted his report dated 4.4.1979 and both the additional issues were held in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2. The learned Additional District Judge ultimately allowed the appeal and held that the transactions of sale entered into between Karma respondent No. 3 and the appellants were not genuine, and that the appellants could not be said to have become owners of the land in dispute by virtue of the sale deeds and that the respondents No. 1 and 2 who were the rightful heirs of their father Dharma must be held to be the owners of the land in dispute which belonged to Dharma. Consequently he held that the suit must succeed. He passed a decree for possession of the property in dispute in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2. This judgment was pronounced on 8.6.1979. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the lower appellate court, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the original plaintiffs and Karma who has thereafter, died.