SURAJ KUMAR WALIA Vs. PUNAM WALIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is instituted against the order dated 14.11.2014 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 55/1 of 09/08.

(2.) Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) has instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 55/1 of 2009 against the respondentsdefendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants' for convenience sake) for declaration to the effect that the Will and General Power of Attorney dated 4.2.2003, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Paonta Sahib on 4.2.2003 by late Sh. Dalip Singh Walia was null and void and any sale or transfer made on the basis of alleged Will and General Power of Attorney, particularly the property comprised of double storey building consisting of residential house-cum- 7 shops etc. bearing M.C. Patiala (Pb.) No. 302/1 to 309/1 situated at Gau-Shala Road Patiala, Panjab or any other transactions made by defendants on the basis of such documents be declared null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and the property subsequently purchased from the income/sale proceeds of the above mentioned transfers made on the basis of forged and fictitious Will and G.P.A. dated 4.2.2003 by the defendants in connivance with each other, particularly the land comprised in Khewat No. 164 min, Khatoni No. 378 min, Kh. No. 156 measuring 341.25 sq. mtrs., situated at Mauza Paonta Sahib, as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-03, be declared properties of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. They be declared owners of all movable and immovable properties left behind by late Sh. Dalip Singh father of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 3 to the extent of 1/2 share each with consequential relief of restraining the defendants from further alienating, encumbering the said property in any manner.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing Written Statement. The plaintiff has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the vendees. The application was rejected on 16.2.2013. The plaintiff filed CMPMO No. 111 of 2013. The same was dismissed by this Court on 12.11.2013. The plaintiff moved applications under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was partly allowed by framing additional issues i.e. issue Nos. 10-A, 10-B & 10-C.