SANT RAM Vs. AMAR CHAND DHOGRI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Sant Ram in the trial Court is in second appeal, as he is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 151 -P/XIII -02, allowing thereby the appeal and dismissed the suit on reversal of the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra in Civil suit No. 280/99/98.

(2.) ONE Smt. Gangi Devi (since dead), defendant No. 3 in the trial Court, was mother of the parties to the present lis. Her share in the entire land, as entered in Khata No. 40, Khatauni No. 101 to 114, Khasra Kita 23, measuring 1 -73 -30 hectares, as per Jamabandi for the year 1991 -92, was to the extent of 403600/10727688. It is this parcel of land, the subject matter of dispute in the present lis. The plaintiff claims ownership thereof consequent upon a family settlement having taken place on 26.1.1980, as according to him, in terms of the settlement suit land came to him. After taking possession of the suit land he raised the construction of a house thereon to the knowledge and notice of the defendants. He is now in exclusive possession of the suit land. He allegedly acquired title in the suit land by way of adverse possession. According to him, certain disputes arose between the family members and those were settled with the intervention of the respectable persons belonging to the community and the terms whereof were reduced into writing. In that settlement also, the suit land was again given to him. Defendant No. 1 allegedly a shrewd person in connivance with defendant No. 2 pressurized said Smt. Gangi Devi and managed the execution of the General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 from her. On the basis of the same, the said defendant has managed the sale of the suit land in his favour through the so called attorney defendant No. 2 without consideration. Said Smt. Gangi Devi was illiterate, rustic, old, sick and mentally feeble lady, having no sense to understand the things. The execution of the General Power of Attorney by her was, therefore, stated to be the result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, hence claims to be illegal and fabricated document. The sale deed executed on the basis of said document is also stated to illegal, null and void, hence the suit for seeking declaration that the General Power of Attorney dated 3.11.1997 obtained by defendant No. 2 from deceased Gangi Devi was the result of fraud, undue influence and the execution of the sale deed dated 15.11.1997 on the basis thereof is also illegal, null and void, was filed. It was also claimed that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and as such the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the suit land from him or alienating or changing the nature thereof in any manner whatsoever was also sought.

(3.) DEFENDANTS in the written statement, besides the preliminary objections qua maintainability, valuation and jurisdiction of the Court to try and entertain the suit has admitted on merits that deceased defendant Gangi Devi, their mother was the owner of the suit land and that she had sold the same to defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 15.11.1997. It is denied that the suit land is joint of the parties. It is also denied that the suit land was given to the plaintiff and that he raised the construction of house thereon. He having acquired title in the suit land by way of adverse possession is also denied being wrong. Deceased Gangi Devi had appointed defendant No. 2, her General Power of Attorney. Defendant No. 2, therefore, executed the sale deed being the authorized attorney of the owner, i.e., defendant No. 3, in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 has purchased the suit land for consideration.