SUNIL BHANDARI S/O SHRI DHANPAT RAJ BHANDARI AND ANR. Vs. SHAKUNTALA KUMARI ALIAS SANGEETA KANWAR D/O SHRI PREM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent No.1 daughter of Prem Singh filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds and permanent injunction inter-alia seeking declaration that document Nos. 1534 & 1533 dated 15.09.1979 to the extent of her half share be declared void and the land transferred by the documents be ordered to be recorded in her name in the revenue records.

(3.) It was inter-alia claimed in the plaint that agricultural land ad measuring 2486 Bigha 10 Biswa is situated in Village Kaparda, Tehsil Biiara, District Jodhpur. In the said land the plaintiff and defendant No.20 i.e. Praveen Kumar, her brother have 2/16 share ad measuring 336 Bigha 4 Biswa, they are in possession as co-tenant and the land has not been partitioned so far. The land in question was recorded in the name of plaintiff and her brother as per their share through guardian defendant No. 19 Smt. Pawan Kanwar, their mother. The plaintiff and defendant No.20 were minors and defendant No.4 Chain Singh, who is real bother of plaintiff's father, showing himself as power of attorney holder of plaintiff and defendant No. 19 Pawan Kanwar as guardian of defendant No.20, fraudulently sold 75 Bigha land on 15.04.1979 through document No. 1534 to defendant Nos. l to 3 and 50 Bigha land to defendant Nos.5 & 6 through document No. 1533 i.e. in all 125 Bigha land was fraudulently transferred with an intention to misappropriate plaintiff's land. It was alleged that on the date when the documents were executed, the plaintiff and her brother were minors and the land was recorded in their name through guardian; their mother Pawan Kanwar did not execute the power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.4 and there was neither necessity for transferring the land in question nor the same was for the benefit of the minors and the land in question was transferred by the defendant No.4 under a planned fraud by claiming himself to be a power of attorney holder of plaintiff and defendant No.20.