JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. LALO BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants -plaintiffs has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 3.6.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Anoopgarh has been upheld.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the appellants seeking setting aside of sale deed dated 31.12.1991, registered on 10.1.1992 as null and void inter -alia with the averments that they were legal representatives of Nand Lal, who expired on 17.10.1992. The agriculture land was being managed by the defendants and for the purpose of getting loan for installing tube -well, when the plaintiffs approached Tehsildar Anoopgarh for getting their name mutated in the revenue record, they came to know that the agriculture land belonging to their father has been recorded in the name of defendant No.1, based on a power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.2 by their father dated 23.12.1991, which was a fraudulent document the sale deed was executed and got registered by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1. Several allegations were made seeking to substantiate non -execution of the power of attorney i.e. 23.12.1991 by their father and ultimately prayed that the suit be decreed. The sale deed be declared null and void, having been executed based on a fraudulent power of attorney and as the possession has been obtained by the respondents after the suit was filed, they may be directed to deliver possession.

(3.) THE trial court framed five issues and after evidence was led by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to substantiate that Nandlal had not executed the power of attorney dated 23.12.1991, the sale deed executed on the basis of power of attorney was not liable to be cancelled, the suit was filed within limitation and the plea raised by the defendants regarding execution of the agreement to sale even before the execution of the sale deed was held against the defendants. Based on its finding on the issues, the trial court dismissed the suit.