HARCHAND SINGH Vs. GEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 5 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned. CMNo.11234-Cof2019

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants. Defendant No.1 set up a counter claim for seeking damages against the plaintiff. Plaintiff asserted that grand-father of defendant No.1 was allotted the suit land. It was averred that from her grand-father namely Gurdiata Mai, the land was inherited by father of defendant No.1 namely Bishamber Lal and from Bishamber Lai, defendant No.1 inherited the suit property. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant No.4 got executed sale deed of the land in his favour by impersonating some other person as Ram Sharni. Defendant No.1 appointed the plaintiff as her special power of attorney to pursue the litigation vide special power of attorney dated 29.08.2006. Defendant No.1 gave possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as special power of attorney. Since 29.08.2006, the plaintiff has been managing the suit property and is in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff has been pursuing the civil and criminal litigation on behalf of defendant No.1 and has spent huge amount in pursuing the litigation as attorney of defendant No.1 as well as in looking after the land. Defendant No.1 started refusing the plaintiff to be her attorney. Earlier defendants No.1 and 4 were interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and he filed a suit against them. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 along with defendants No.2 and 3 started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff withdrew the suit as defendants No.2 and 3 were not parties to that suit.

(3.) Defendants have contested the suit on merits. It has been averred that defendant No.1 is the owner in possession of the suit property after the demise of her father Bishamber Lai. Defendant No.2 is the husband of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 Som Nath has no concern with the suit property. It has been further averred that Sakkattar Singh and others impersonated some person in place of Ram Sharni and forged a power of attorney alleging the same to be executed by Bishamber Lal who had died long back. A criminal case was registered and the accused were convicted by the competent Court on 01.12.2014 in case titled State Vs. Sakkattar Singh and others. Defendant No.1 engaged a counsel in the said case and she had executed a special power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff. After few months, defendant No.1 had come to know about evil design of the plaintiff as he was hobnobbing with the accused party and was not attending the cases. Defendant No.1 revoked the special power of attorney and asserted that the plaintiff thereafter has no concern with the property in question. The possession of the plaintiff was also denied. Plaintiff never managed the property in dispute nor remained in possession of the same and has not cultivated the suit property in any manner. Plaintiff has not pursued any civil or criminal litigation on behalf of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 herself engaged a counsel to conduct the suit proceedings. For the harassment meted to defendant No.1, she has set up a counter claim for recovery of damages against the plaintiff.