SURINDERPAL SINGH Vs. DHRUVINDERPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine will dispose of RSA Nos. 969 and 632 of 2005 as they have arisen out of the same impugned judgment and decree.

(2.) RSA No. 969 of 2002 has been preferred by Surinderpal Singh and Satish Kumar who were defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit, whereas RSA No. 632 of 2005 has been filed by S. Surjit Singh, Smt. Tarawant, Padam Jain, Ashok Jain and Vinod Jain. Appellant No. 1 S. Surjit Singh was defendant No. 1 in the suit whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of Ballabh Dass Jain, defendant No. 2 in the suit. Both the appeals are against the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 105T/16.10.2003/3.12.2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. In RSA No. 969 of 2005, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were the plaintiffs in the suit. They are also arrayed as legal heirs of Malwinderpal Kaur, plaintiff No. 3 in the suit.

(3.) THAT father of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 (Vishvinder Pal Kaur and Upinderpal Kaur daughters of Mohinderpal Singh now deceased) and husband of plaintiff No. 5, migrated from Gujaranwala, now Pakistan and filed a claim for rehabilitation. They were entitled to land in lieu of the land left by them in Pakistan. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Surjit Singh and Ballabh Dass Jain, respectively, approached the plaintiffs with an offer to help them in getting the allotment of land representing to be professionals. They asked for a Power of Attorney from the plaintiffs for representing them before the Department of Rehabilitation. A Power of Attorney dated 06.01.1979 was duly executed and given to them. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs came to now that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have forged various documents in order to grab the land which was yet to be allotted to them. The defendants had also obtained the signatures of the plaintiffs on various documents including blank vakalatnama, plain papers etc. and the same were used and presented before the Rehabilitaton Department. On acquiring the knowledge of the intentions of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 cancelled the Power of Attorney vide cancellation deed bearing No. 2183 dated 24.1.1983, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Mussoorie. Similar, cancellation deed was also made by Pushpinderpal Kaur plaintiff No. 5 at Batala and got the same registered on 08.02.1983. It is also stated that the plaintiffs thereafter filed two separate suits for permanent injunctions titled "Dhruvinder Pal Singh and others v. Surjit Singh and others being Civil Suit No. 484T dated 05.04.1989 and another suit titled "Pushpinderpal kaur v. Surjit Singh and others being Civil Suit No. 21 dated 03.04.1989. Both these suits were decided on 07.12.1989 by Mr. B.S. Sidhu, the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs also issued registered notices to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 intimating them regarding the cancellation of their Power of Attorney and for restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from acting as their attorney. It is alleged that notice was received by defendant No. 2, but the service was refused by defendant No. 1. A proclamation to this effect was also published in the newspaper "Arrested Voice" on 05.02.1985 which was for the information of the General Public about the cancellation of the Power of Attorneys. The plaintiffs also specifically mentioned that despite the information of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 fabricated an agreement to sell on a piece of paper with respect to the suit land and based upon the said agreement to sell, a suit No. 40 of 1989 for specific performance came to be filed by Surinder pal Singh and Satish Kumar, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the present suit. It is alleged that the plaintiffs herein were defendants No. 3 to 7 in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1989 and they were never served in the suit which came to be decreed on 30.03.1989. It is further stated that, as a matter of fact, no notice was served upon the plaintiffs and they never engaged any counsel nor filed any vakalatnama or written statement. It is averred that the plaintiffs never entered into an agreement to sell in respect to the suit land in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the agreement was handiwork of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. They further alleged that they never authorized their attorneys to execute the agreement to sell nor any earnest money was ever received by them. The decree was challenged on the allegations of fraud stating that he vakalatnama produced in the Court also had the signatures of Malwinderpal Kaur and Upinderpal Kaur who died before the date of the filing of the vakalatnama in the Court and their signatures were scored off from the Power of Attorney. It is alleged that this vakalatnama was given to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1979.