PREM KUMARI Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Smt.Raj Kumari wife of Sh.Bhagat Singh, resident of Hisar had brought a suit against her real sister Smt.Prem Kumari and Ms.Alka Chaudhary, daughter of Smt.Prem Kumari on the assertions that she is owner in possession of land to the extent of 160/1420 share in the total land measuring 212 kanals 18 marlas situated at village Nalwa, Tehsil and District Hisar as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04 and a plot bearing No.352 measuring 350 square yards situated at Sector 14, Faridabad; that she had not sold that plot to anybody, however, in the month of April, 2008, the plaintiff came to know that the plot in question had been got transferred by her sister Smt.Prem Kumari - defendant No.1 in favour of her daughter Ms.Alka Chaudhary - defendant No.2; the plaintiff made inquiries from HUDA confirmed the alleged transfer vide letter dated 22.5.2008; it transpired that a fraudulent transaction had been done by the defendants on the basis of some false, forged and fabricated general power of attorney allegedly executed and registered on 3.5.2005 with Sub- Registrar, Vijay Raghavgarh, District Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh); that the alleged general power of attorney was purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1, when as a matter of fact the plaintiff had not done so; that the plaintiff lodged an FIR with regard to said matter; that the plaintiff had never appointed the defendant No.1 as her general attorney and had not received any sale consideration amount from either of the defendants, therefore, the general power of attorney and sale deed as well as the transfer permission are illegal, null and void; that when the defendants refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff to cancel those documents, the plaintiff brought the suit in question seeking a declaration that alleged general power of attorney bearing document No.A-4/321 dated 3.5.2005, shown to be registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Vijay Raghavgarh, District Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) and sale deed bearing document No.14887 dated 29.12.2005 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Faridabad and the transfer permission No.43800 dated 28.12.2005 issued by HUDA, Faridabad are illegal, void and not binding upon rights, title or interest of any kind of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is absolute owner and in possession of plot No.352 having area of 350 square yards, Sector 14, Faridabad; in addition to that, the plaintiff craved for grant of a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property or alienating the same in any manner; besides seeking a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the original documents pertaining to the suit property to her. The suit was filed by the plaintiff before Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Hisar, which was assigned to Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Hisar.

(2.) On getting notice, both the defendants had appeared and moved an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint for the reason that Civil Court at Hisar did not have territorial jurisdiction in respect of plot No.352, Sector 14, Faridabad, therefore the plaint was liable to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation of the same in Civil Court at Faridabad and that plaintiff had included the land at village Nalwa, Tehsil and District Hisar in the plaint simply to create the jurisdiction of Civil Court at Hisar, otherwise there was no dispute between the parties to the suit with regard to the land at village Nalwa; the defendants had never raised any question regarding the title of the plaintiff in respect of land situated at village Nalwa and they do not claim any right or interest therein; that the land at village Nalwa is owned by the husband of the plaintiff, who is not a party to the suit, therefore Court at Hisar could not entertain and try the suit and plaint was liable to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to Civil Court, Faridabad, where the plot in question is situated.

(3.) The plaintiff resisted the application contending that she is owner in possession of the land situated at village Nalwa, District Hisar on the basis of decree passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Hisar, which fact is well within the knowledge of applicants/defendants and they had moved a wrong application and they just want to grab the property of the plaintiff on the basis of forged documents and further Court at Hisar had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The plaintiff prayed for dismissal of the application.