DEVINDER BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER Vs. RAVINDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the verdict recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P., upon, Civil Suit No.2-S/1 of 2006, wherethrough, the plaintiff's suit for rendition of a decree for declaration, and, for setting aside the sale deed executed by defendant No.1, vis-a-vis, defendant No.2, and, serialized as deed No.438 of 4.5.2005, with, the Sub Registrar, Solan, was, hence decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit qua declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 bearing No.438 of 4.5.2005 registered with Sub Registrar, Solan, to be void abinitio and restraining the defendant from interfering over the suit land in any manner. It has been averred that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.213, Khatauni No.308, Khasra No.1414/137, measuring 300 sq. meters, situated at Mauza Salogra Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. Defendant No.1 was appointed as power of attorney to manage and to lookafter the suit land on 30.11.1995 vide registered deed No.273. It has been averred that since defendant No.1 failed to perform the job which was assigned to him as general power of attorney, it was got cancelled vide registered deed No.47 of 1.3.1997 registered with Sub Registrar, Solan, with whom general power of attorney was earlier registered. Defendant No.1 was intimated qua the cancellation of the power of attorney and photo copy of cancellation deed was handed over to him and receipt was also taken. It has been alleged that in the first week of September, 2005, the plaintiff came to know that some people had visited the suit land claiming the land to be owned by them, thereby on enquiry came to know that defendant No.1 had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant NO.1 qua the suit land. The general power of attorney under which he was authorised to deal with having been cancelled. He had no authority to execute the sale deed bearing No.438 registered with Sub Registrar, Solan, thereby it has been prayed that neither defendant No.1 was having any right, title or interest over the suit land nor he could have created any right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has played fraud and has executed the sale deed without any power. The market value of the suit land was Rs.1,20,000/- per biswa as the average value of the land comes out Rs.6,49,866/-. However, defendant No.1 had sold it for the amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. Defendant No.1 was tried to be contacted but to no result. Mutation was also attested in favour of defendant No.1 bearing mutation No.712 of 30.052005 on the basis of which defendant No.1 is now claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit land, whereas defendant has acquired no right, title or interest by a sale deed which has been executed unauthorised person.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed joint written statement, wherein, preliminary objections have been taken qua estoppel, cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction, court fee etc. on merits, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land in favour of Shri Swaran Singh Cheema son of Sh. Sant Singh for a consideration of Rs.1,55,000/- on 28.9.1995. The amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid by Swaran Singh Cheema to the plaintiff and remaining amount was to be paid on or before 30.11.1995 when the sale deed was got to be registered. Defendant No.1 was one of the witness to that deed. When on 30.11.1995 the remaining amount was to be paid, Swaran Singh Cheema showed his inability to purchase the same land, and was reluctant to pay the remaining amount and ultimately a sale in favour of defendant no.1 was made who paid the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- to the plaintiff on the same day i.e. 30.11.1995 and possession of the suit land was delivered to defendant No.1 by the plaintiff. The same day general power of attorney was also executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 for executing the necessary sale deed in favour of any person and it was undertaken that the general power of attorney would not be revoked as for all intents and purposes defendant No.1 was owner of the land in suit as the full consideration amount having been paid and possession also having been delivered. It was agreed that defendant No.1 can get the sale deed executed as of his choice. The amount of Rs.30,000/- which has been paid by Swaran Singh Cheema was paid to him and Saran Singh Cheema was satisfied with the sale of the land n favour of defendant No.1. The receipt qua the payment of the amount was also executed thereby the plaintiff had lost his right, title and interest over the suit lad. The general power of attorney thereafter was with defendant No.1 which was never got cancelled. The allegation of cancellation of the general power of attorney and thereafter providing of intimation to defendant No1 has been disputed. It has been averred that full consideration amount having been received by the plaintiff and the amount of the earlier purchaser Swaran Singh Cheema having been refunded, defendant No.1 has become owner. It has also been averred that defendant No.1 had sold the suit land vide registered sale deed to defendant No.1 and handed over its possession, he being authorised under general power of attorney to effect sale. The other averments made by the plaintiff have been stated to be wrong and it has been submitted that no fraud so far was palyed by the defendant No.1 with the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. It has also been averred that selling of the land at less than the market price has also been denied whereby it has been prayed that in view of the value of the land the court has got jurisdiction and and at the same time the land having been sold by power of attorney and defendant No.2 having paid valuable consideration in good faith, the suit deserves dismissal.