SAJJAN RAJ Vs. SUSHIL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Second Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21/05/2012 passed by the larned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'lower appellate court') in Civil Appeal No.15/2006 (Sushil Agarwal Vs. Sajjanraj and ors) whereby he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 27/02/2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.3, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as learned 'trial court') in Civil Suit No.117/2003 (Shushil Agarwal Vs. Sajjan Raj and ors.) and while reversing the findings of the learned trial court, has decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff for declaration of the sale deed executed by defendants no.2 and 3 as illegal and without authority with respect to Plot No.44-A near Cheerghar, Shanti Priya Nagar, Jodhpur.

(2.) Brief facts which have come out in the suit proceedings are that on 14/01/1988 the defendant no.2-Balveer Kumar Jain entered into an agreement to sale of Plot No.44-A, Cheer Ghar, Shanti Priya Nagar, Jodhpur for a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent no.1-Sushil Agarwal and the agreement was registered on 15/01/1988 (Exhibit 2) and possession of the plot was handed over alongwith necessary documents whereafter the plaintiff raised construction on the said plot and started using the same. However, the sale deed was not executed nor registered. In this regard, a general power of attorney dt.14/01/1988 (Exhibit A-3) was executed by Balveer Kumar Jain in favour of Sajjan Raj, the present appellant empowering Sajjan Raj to execute the sale deed of Plot No.44-A in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 2.1 The plaintiff further came out with the case that the plot was not registered by the general power of attorney holder Sajjan Raj. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff had executed one general power of attorney for a strip of land measuring 6 ft. x 4 inch x 30 ft. in his Plot No.166-B in favour of one Chandra Shekhar for carrying out various works relating the said land. This power of attorney, wrongfully and in conspiracy with the appellant, was interpolated. It was mentioned in the power of attorney that the concerned Chandra Shekhar would also have a right to execute the sale deed in favour of Madan Singh Bhati through whom the plaintiff has received Rs.50,000/- as cash for sale of Plot No.44-A situated at Cheerghar, Shanti Priya Nagar, Jodhpur. The said power of attorney dated 12/11/1990 executed on 23/11/1990 is marked as Exhibit-1.

(3.) In the circumstances, the present two appeals have been preferred by Sajjan Raj and Balveer Kumar Jain. The original defendant no.3-Chandra Shekhar was ex-parte before both the courts below.