PRIYVRAT AND ORS. Vs. MAHINDRA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendants have preferred this second appeal against impugned judgment and decree dated 15 th of November, 2018, passed by Addl. District Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned first appellate Court'), whereby the appeal of defendants has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 6th of August, 2013, passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'), decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiffs has been affirmed.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent-plaintiffs, legal heirs of one Jhonpiram, including his sons and other family members, filed a suit against appellant-defendants and respondent No.4 Meharchand - another son of Jhonpiram, for declaration of right, possession of property and mesne profits, stating inter-alia therein that they are descendents of Jhonpiram, who was allotted land measuring 25 bigha, as a pong dam oustee, in Anoopgarh and Khatedari Sanad was issued to him on 19/6/1995. It is averred that Jhompiram was the sole owner of that land, who died on 26/8/1995 yet a power of attorney was got prepared on 12/10/1998, by impersonating him, in favour of appellant- defendant No.1, and after a few days on 15/10/1998, an agreement was executed in respect of said agricultural land of Jhonpiram in favour of respondent No.2, which was got registered on 11/12/1998. It is also averred that defendant No.1 and 2, with an intention to devour the land of Jhopiram, hatched a conspiracy and got prepared false and fabricated power of attorney by presenting someone else in his place by impersonation in the office of Sub Registrar whereas the land in question was given on Theka Kast to defendant No.2 by the plaintiffs and she had been paying them Theka amount to the extent of their share but during the period from 2005-06 and 2006-07 Theka amount was not paid on the pretext of crop failing and later on they came to know about the disputed sale from the Patwari concerned. The respondent-plaintiffs prayed for declaring the so called power of attorney null and void in relation to their right and title so also for cancellation of sale deed, executed on the basis of forged power of attorney, and also prayed for possession of disputed land to the extent of their share.

(3.) The suit was contested by appellant-defendant No.1 by filing a written statement. It was pleaded that the land in disputed was sold by Jhonpiram in his lifetime for consideration of Rs.60,000.00 to him through power of attorney on 31/10/1985 and since then he was in possession of the said land, which he sold to defendant No.2 on 15/10/1998. Defendant No.1 alleged that defendant No.3 and plaintiff No.1 hatched a conspiracy and under a power of attorney sold the land in favour of Chiranjilal on 10/4/2000 for consideration of Rupees two lakhs. In addition to other allegations of blackmailing etc., he denied any conspiracy on his part with defendant No.2 and accepted the ownership of defendant No.2 being purchaser of land and thereby prayed for dismissal of the suit.