BALBIR SINGH Vs. MAHESH INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Balbir Singh had brought a suit against defendants Mahesh Inder Singh and others, seeking a declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/6 share in land measuring 30K-12M and to the extent of 67/142 share in land measuring 7K-12M situated at Village Lahri, Tehsil Pathankot, then District Gurdaspur (now Pathankot) fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint and that the general power of attorney dated 01.03.1999 allegedly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Pathankot as well as general power of attorney dated 14.01.2000 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Pathankot are forged and fabricated documents, result of fraud, forgery and impersonation by defendants in connivance with each other, neither executed by plaintiff nor got registered by him and that the sale deed dated 27.03.2000 registered in the office of Sub Registrar Pathankot, vide document No.6883 dated 27.03.2000 executed allegedly on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis of illegal and fabricated general powers of attorney is illegal, null and void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff to hold and possess the suit land and furthermore, mutation sanctioned on the basis of sale deed is also null and void. As a consequential relief, a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land be passed.

(2.) As per version of the plaintiff, he is co-sharer in possession of the suit land as detailed in headnote of the plaint and had taken Rs.40,000/- from defendant No.1 on 01.03.1999 in presence of Sampuran Singh and Bakshish Singh sons of Ranjit Singh, R/o Village Akhrota. He was made to sign blank stamp papers at the bottom on one place and certain other registers and blank papers. Thereafter in a first week of April,1999 the plaintiff borrowed another sum of Rs. 50,000/- in presence of same persons from defendant No.1 and he was again made to sign a stamp paper and certain other papers and registers. It was so done at Tehsil Complex, Pathankot. The signatures of alleged witnesses Vijay Singh, Ramesh Singh and Sampuran Singh were also obtained on blank stamp papers. Defendant no.1 had assured the plaintiff that signatures had been obtained just by way of security and the blank stamp papers would be returned as soon as the amount was repaid. The plaintiff repaid the amount in instalments, however, no receipt was given by defendant No.1. When the plaintiff demanded the papers back, defendant No.1 stated that the plaintiff was to pay another sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of interest. In the first week of April, 2000 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had got a sale deed executed dated 27.03.2000 in favour of defendant No. 2 for alleged consideration of Rs.1 lakh regarding the entire 1/6 share out of the suit land of the plaintiff to the extent of 8 kanals 9 marlas by representing himself as the alleged general power of attorney of the plaintiff vide general power of attorney deed document No. 646 dated 24.01.2000 and 693 dated 01.03.1999 allegedly registered before Sub Registrar, Pathankot, whereas defendant No.1 converted those blank stamp papers into general power of attorney qua land measuring 30K-12M to the extent of 1/6 share of the plaintiff measuring 5K-2M. According to the plaintiff, he had not appeared before Sub Registrar, Pathankot for registration of said general power of attorney dated 01.03.1999 and it seems that defendant No.1 procured the same by way of impersonation in connivance with Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Singh and the deed writer Joginder Thakur. The plaintiff further came to know that defendant No.1 had charged Rs.2,50,000/- from defendant No.2 as sale consideration and got sanctioned mutation No.491 on the basis of aforesaid illegal sale deed. Defendants No.1 & 2 in connivance with other defendants threatened to take forcible possession of such land from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is still in joint possession of the suit land along with other co-sharers. When defendants refused to concede the claim of the plaintiff, he filed the civil suit in question in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Pathankot.

(3.) On being put to notice, defendants No.1 & 3 appeared and filed written statement, contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections that plaintiff himself had appointed defendant No.2 as his attorney on 01.03.1999 and 14.01.2000 and such powers of attorney were duly registered. The plaintiff was not in a position to look after, maintain and sell the suit land; the plaintiff was also in need of money due to financial constraints and he had received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1 lakh from defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 accordingly executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 being attorney of the plaintiff; after execution of the sale deed, defendant No.2 complained that there was some charge of the Pathankot Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd, Pathankot over the suit land and on enquiry, defendants No.1 & 2 learnt that a sum of Rs. 40,700/- was due payable by the plaintiff to the said bank and then they went to the plaintiff demanding an explanation but there was no proper response. Defendant No.2 deposited the amount with the said bank and then paid stamp duty for the said amount treating the sale consideration of Rs. 1,40,700/- and then mutation of transfer was sanctioned in his favour. On merits such defendants controverted the assertions in the plaint and defended the impugned sale deed as a legal and valid document, lawfully executed by the plaintiff through his lawful attorney defendant No.1 whom he had appointed and authorized to execute the sale deed. Refuting the remaining assertions, such defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.