TEJ KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) According to the prosecution, Harbans Lal, Madan Lal and Devraj alias Bodhraj, residents of Delhi owned 28 kanals; 6 marlas of land in village Kalas Kalan, District Ludhiana. Madan Lal and Dev Raj, sons of Moti Ram, were both in Army. They leased out land about 20-25 years ago to Sadhu Singh etc. who paid them lease money for quite a long time. For the last about 7-8 years, they (owners of the land) could not visit the village and now when they came to the village and asked them the lease money, they (Sadhu Singh etc.) refused to pay them the lease money and threatened them that rather, they were owners of the land. They made enquiries. Enquiries made by them revealed that they had forged Power of Attorney (Mukhtiar Nama). They (owners of the land) had never executed the Mukhtiar Nama in favour of Sadhu Singh. On the strength of that forged Power of Attorney (Mukhtiar Nama), according to Madan Lal, Sadhu Singh executed sale-deeds in favour of Tej Kaur wife of Charan Singh etc. In this manner, on the strength of forged Power of Attorney, Sadhu Singh disposed of 9 Kanals; 17 Marlas out of the land measuring 28 kanals; 6 marlas in favour of Tej Kaur wife of Charan Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Major Singh sons of Charan Singh and Mohinder Kaur wife of Sadhu Singh.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as Sukhdev Singh son of Charan Singh etc. are concerned, they bonafide purchased the land bonafide believing that the power of Attorney as held by Sadhu Singh is genuine. It is a matter requiring investigation whether they acted bonafide or they were privy to the forgery being committed by Sadhu Singh.