ROSHAN LAL Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' suit for rendition, of, a declaratory decree, for setting aside the contentious general power of attorney, executed, on 17.11.2006, vis- -vis, the defendants, and, also, for, rendition, of, a declaratory decree, for, setting aside the sale deed, executed, hence, on, 9.1.2007, by defendant No. 1, vis- -vis, defendant No. 2, besides for rendition, of, a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, vis- -vis, the suit land, and, against, the, defendants, came to be partly allowed, in asmuch, as, the sale deed, borne in Ext. DW1/A, and, executed on 9.1.2007, hence interse defendants No. 1, and, 2 became declared to be wrong, illegal, null and void, and, also the plaintiff, was, granted, the, espoused decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, and, therethrough the defendants, were, restrained, from, taking forcible possession, of, the, suit land and, from cutting/removing trees, existing, upon, the suit land.

(2.) Apparently, the general power of attorney executed, on 17.11.2006, by the deceased plaintiff, vis- vis, the defendant No. 1, was not declared, to be null and void. The afore adversarial findings returned, against the plaintiff, remained unchallenged, before the learned first appellate Court, and, hence the afore findings adversarial, vis- -vis, the defendant No. 1, acquire both conclusivity, and, requisite binding effect. However, the, declaratory decree, made vis- -vis, the plaintiff, and, wherethrough Ext. DW1/A became declared, to, be null and void, became challenged by the aggrieved therefrom defendants, and, thereon(s), the learned first appellate Court hence made an order, hence allowing the defendants' appeal. The aggrieved therefrom plaintiffs, make a challenge thereagainst, through, theirs instituting the instant second appeal, before this Court, and, therethrough they strived, to, beget reversal, of, the verdict recorded, on 27.3.2019, upon, Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2017, hence by the learned first appellate Court.

(3.) As aforestated, with conclusivity becoming acquired vis- -vis the findings, recorded, qua the validity, of, execution, of, the power of attorney, hence made, on 17.11.2006, vis- -vis, defendant No. 1, by the plaintiffs, (a) thereupon hence all the recital(s) borne in the power of attorney, inclusive, of, the sale consideration, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its execution, becoming transferred, by, the defendant No. 1, the, constituted therein hence apt power of attorney, vis- -vis, the plaintiffs, and, besides cumulatively therealongwith also the afore constituted/executed power, of, attorney, becoming registered, by the SubRegistrar concerned, and, its' carrying the apt sealed signatured endorsement(s), vis- -vis, all the contents thereof, becoming explained, and, understood, rather by its executant, (b) and, apart from the sealed signatured endorsement, of, the Registrar, rather occurring thereon also, hence the apt markings thereon, of, the executants(s) thereof, also occurring (c), and, with no concerted efforts, becoming recoursed, rather by the plaintiffs, hence for rebutting, the, afore presumption of truth, as, is, carried by the afore made statutorily, sealed, and, signatured endorsement(s), (d) thereupon with, the apt fullest corroborative therewith recital(s), becoming borne therein, and, theirs making voicing(s) qua in contemporaneity, vis- -vis, its execution, the contracted sale consideration passing, hence from defendant No. 1, qua, the plaintiff, naturally, therethrough rather theirs' acquiring, an, apt conclusivity. The concomitant sequel thereof, is, with the, endorsement(s), made in Ext. DW1/A, also making be-speaking(s), alike therewith, and, with the afore bespeaking(s), also remaining un-rebutted, besides rather becoming corroborated, by the afore recital(s), as, borne, in, the unchallenged, hence, validly executed general power of attorney, by the plaintiff vis- -vis codefendant No. 1, (e) thereupon, even, if, in contemporaneity, vis- -vis, the, execution, of, DW1/A, there occurring no passing,of, the apt sale consideration, from, the, vendee, to the vendor, the, afore factum, becoming in-consequential, unless evidence, stood adduced, vis- -vis, in-contemporaneity, vis- -vis, qua execution, of, Ext.DW1/A, interse co-defendant No. 1, and, co-defendant No. 2, the, revocation deed, being placed, before the Sub-Registrar concerned, and, also (f) with cogent evidence surging forth, vis- -vis, the execution, of, the afore apposite revocation deed, hence co-defendant, acquiring knowledge rather in contemporaneity, vis- -vis, execution, of, Ex. DW1/A. Since the afore evidence, is, amiss, thereupon the verdict pronounced, upon, Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2017, hence setting aside, the, declaratory decree, granted by the learned trial Judge, wherethrough, it, set aside Ext. DW1/A, is, not interferable, by this Court. No question of law, muchless a substantial question of law, arises, for determination.