SMT. PRITO DEVI Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been filed by appellants-plaintiffs against the common judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal Nos.63/2K RBT 222/04/2000 and 65/2K RBT 223/04/2000, reversing the common judgment and decree dated 29.2.2000, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, H.P. in two Civil Suits No.107 of 1992 and 169 of 1992, whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was decreed and that of the respondents-defendants was dismissed.

(2.) The main dispute between the parties relates to the land measuring 149 Kanals 4 Marlas and Abadi situated in Tikka Ghugan Kakrana, Tappa Thara, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, detail of which has been mentioned in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land').

(3.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') are joint owners in possession of the suit land. It is averred by the plaintiffs that the suit property was earlier owned and possessed by Milkhi Ram, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3, who succeeded him after his death. It is further averred that plaintiff No.1 is residing in the village, whereas the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are residing at the places where they are married. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 is married in the brotherhood of plaintiff No.1 with the daughter of one Dhanna in the same village due to which he is known to the plaintiffs and he used to visit the house of plaintiff No.1, whenever he occasionally visited to the house of his in-laws. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that after the death of husband of plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 started visiting her house oftenly to show sympathy and to help her in the management of her property and few days before the execution of the disputed documents, he prevailed upon and induced plaintiff No.1 by showing sympathy to her to execute a power of attorney in his favour on her behalf as well as on behalf of her daughters. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that on that day, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 had come to the house of plaintiff No.1 to inquire about her health, as she was suffering from fever. It is further alleged that plaintiff No.1 is a widow and other plaintiffs are rustic and illiterate ladies and they, without seeking any independent advice of their relatives, agreed to execute the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1, who brought them to Bangana and got their thumb impressions and signatures on numerous papers without showing and explaining the contents thereof to them and they were only told by defendant No.1 and the Deed Writer that a general power of attorney for managing the property has been written. It is further alleged that the Tehsildar also did not explain the contents of the writings to them as the Deed Writer, the officials of Sub Registrar, as well as the Sub Registrar, all were connived and colluded to get the execution and attestation of documents and after about 9 or 10 months of this incident i.e. during the month of March, 1992, the defendants started interfering with a view to take forcible possession of the suit property to which the plaintiffs objected and then defendant No.1 disclosed that there are sale deeds qua suit land and agreement to sell qua Abadi in their favour on behalf of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs inquired the matter from the Patwari Halqua, who disclosed them that three different sale deeds and one agreement to sell had been got executed from the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they neither executed any sale deed or agreement to sell in favour of defendants nor they executed any power of attorney in favour of defendant No.5 and nor they ever received any consideration from the defendants. So the alleged sale deeds and agreement to sell in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 by the plaintiffs as well as power of attorney in favour of defendant No.5, are the result of fraud, mis-representation, undue influence and same are without consent of the plaintiffs. In this background, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land in any manner.