RAM DULARI Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, is, directed by the aggrieved defendants, against, the concurrently recorded judgments, made, initially by the learned trial Judge, and, latter by the learned first appellate Court, (i) wherethrough the plaintiffs' suit, bearing suit No. 501/95/1991, seeking therethrough rendition, of, a decree of specific performance, vis-A-vis, suit the suit land, and, against the defendants, became decreed, by, the learned trial Judge, and, in an appeal carried thereagainst, by the aggrieved therefrom, before the learned first appellate Court, the afore appeal also, suffered an alike fate. The defendants concerned becoming aggrieved therefrom, constitute thereagainst, the instant regular second appeal, before this Court.

(2.) When the instant appeal, came up, for admission, before this Court, on 22.7.2004, this Court admitted the instant RSA, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question(s), of, law:-

(3.) Shyam Lal, through Ext. PW1/A, Exhibit whereof, became witnessed by two witnesses thereto, namely, one Ram Swaroop, and, by one Kishori Lal, hence therethrough, agreed, to, execute, a, registered deed of conveyance, vis-a-vis, the then minor plaintiffs, and, qua the suit land. Obviously, since the minor vendeers were under, a, legal disability to, execute, a, registered deed, of, conveyance, necessarily, hence the registered deed of conveyance, rather would hence become executed, through, their guardian, and, next friend, and, wherethroughwhom they instituted, the, afore suit. A disclosure exists in Ext. PW1/A, vis-a-vis, out of the settled recited therein, sale consideration, comprised, in, a sum of Rs. 45,000/-, a sum of Rs. 5,000 being received, by one Shyam Lal, from, the vendee, (i) and also, a further echoing , is, borne therein, vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the making/drawing, of, Ext. PW1/A, rather the possession of the suit property becoming delivered, to, the vendee concerned, (ii) necessarily, hence the afore possession became received through their friend, and, natural guardian, wherethroughwhom, they instituted, the, extant suit. The drawing(s), of, Ext. PW1/A, was, in pursuance, of, or in sequel, to an un-contested, hence validly executed power of attorney, drawn/executed by the owner of the suit land, one, Mohan Lal, vis-a-vis, Shyam Lal, (iii) reiteratedly, the latter made Ext. PW1/A, containing therein, the afore-stated recitals. Since, the constitution, of, the maker, of, Ext. PW1/A, as, the apposite general power of attorney, by the owner of the suit land, namely one Mohan Lal, through, the apposite therewith, power of attorney, becoming drawn, remains un-contested, hence on all facets. (iv) Consequently, the effect, of, lack of contest, on part of the defendants, vis-a-vis, the validity, of, the drawing(s), of, the apposite power of attorney, by one Mohan Lal, vis-a-vis, Shyam Lal, (v) is qua it bringing forth, an inevitable conclusion, qua, the defendants, who are the legal heirs, of, deceased Mohan Lal, becoming estopped, to, contend qua Shyam Lal, becoming not conferred, with any valid authorization, by the afore principal, hence to validly act, as, the apposite agent, hence to validly draw or make Ext. PW1/A.