KIRTI SHARMA Vs. DINESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rsa No. 467 of 2017

(2.) Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad declined the relief of declaration as sought by the plaintiff. However, the suit was partly decreed to restrain the defendants from interfering into possession of plaintiff over the suit property except in due course of law. In appeal filed by respondent no. 1-Pushpa (in RSA-467-2017) purchaser of the suit property, judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad was set aside and suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Hari Mittal Aggarwal was original owner of the suit property bearing no. 727, Sector 21-A, Faridabad. He executed a power of attorney and Will dated 29.08.1996 pertaining to this house in favour of K.K. Sharma, husband of appellant, then on 04.01.2005 executed a sale deed of the disputed house in favour of S.K. Sharma (not a party to the suit), who is father of K.K. Sharma and father-in-law of plaintiff-appellant (Kirti Sharma). K.K. Sharma being attorney of Hari Mittal Aggarwal also executed sale deed dated 13.01.2006 of the disputed house in favour of plaintiff-appellant (his wife). S.K. Sharma sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 30.04.2008 to defendant-respondent no. 2-Madhu Bala (in RSA-467- 2017).