CHAND KAUR Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is unsuccessful plaintiff's first appeal against the judgment and decree of Sub Judge 1st Class, Sarnrala, dated 12.4.1979 dismissing her suit.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deeds dated 15.2.1967 16.2.1967 and 17.2.1967 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant No. 1 to 5 are illegal, void, based on fraud and collusion besides being for insufficient consideration with consequent relief for possession of land in dispute and in the alternative for rendition of accounts and for recovery of amounts found due against the defendants on the allegations that defendant No. 1 to 6 are very close and near relations of each other and are members of the joint Hindu Family.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice issued by the court, defendants put in appearances. Defendants No. 1 to 5; defendant No.6; and defendants No. 7 to 11 filed separate written statements controverting the material averments made by the plaintiff in her plaint. By way to defence it was set up that defendant No. 6 was duly authorised by Kabul Singh (now dead) to manage the land as well as to sell or mortgage oralienate the same. General Power of Attorney was executed by Kabul Singh in favour of Rakha Singh defendant No. 6, Thus the sale deeds executed by Rakha Singh had implicit consent of Kabul Singh arid were affected f6f valuable consideration as reflected in the sale deeds. Rakha Singh too in his written statement defended the sale transactions. Defendant No. 7 to 11 in their written statement raised few preliminary objections i.e. suit in the present form is not maintainable; it is barred by limitation; and that the property has been sold by defendants No. 1 to 5 to the answering defendants for valuable consideration. Earlier to the execution of the sale deeds, answering defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenants at Will. As Rekha Singh had been managing the lands of Kabul Singh over a number of years, they had no doubt that he lacks authority to dispose of the property or that the power of attorney in his favour was in any manner defective. The answering defendants being bonafide purchasers for value, the sale executed by defendants No. 1 to 5 needs to be considered valid and binding upon 'the plaintiff. In any case, plaintiff's claim for recovery of the amount, if any, on account of sale price of the sale deed is, in fact, a dispute between plaintiff and defendant No. 6 for which the answering defendants cannot be held responsible.