A forged Power of Attorney invalidates subsequent transactions, affirming that fraud and justice cannot coexist; the High Court's review under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law, not re-evaluation of factual findings.

Order :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of the present Civil Second Appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Appeal No. 8/2020, whereby the learned Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2020 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Original Case No. 61/2017 (77/2017), which had been partly decreed in favour of the respondents.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1–plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellants, asserting ownership over agricultural land situated at Chak 4-H, Tehsil Anoopgarh, Muraba No. 99/56 (New Muraba No. 39, Pathar No. 99/56), admeasuring 25 bighas, which had been allotted free of cost by the State Government in favour of Smt. Harbai, widow of Prabhudayal. The plaintiff contended that she never executed any Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1979 in favour of Ajmer Singh (defendant No. 1) and that the alleged document was forged, fabricated, and unnotarized, thereby conferring no legal authority upon the said defendant. It was alleged that relying upon this bogus instrument, defendant No. 1 unlawfully alienated the suit land partly to his brother (defendant No. 2) and partly to defendant No. 3 through two registered sale deeds dated 29.03.2012 executed before the Sub-Registrar, Anoopgarh. The plaintiff averred that the impugned sale deeds were void ab initio, as no consent or authorization had ever been granted, and that the purported sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- was grossly undervalued, the actual market worth being in excess of Rs.11,00,000/-. On discovering the transactions on 18.06.2012, the plaintiff filed the suit within the period of limitation, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed on the strength of the alleged Power of Attorney be declared null and void and set aside.

2.1. The defendants filed a joint written statement, denying the allegations and asserting that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed a sale agreement dated 30.04.1979 in favour of defendant No. 1 and his mother for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-, out of which Rs.55,000/- was paid in cash. It was further pleaded that, in pursuance thereof, the plaintiff executed a duly notarized Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1, drafted by Advocate Murari Lal Meda in the presence of Dhanna Singh and Laxman Ram, with her thumb impression affixed in their presence. The defendants contended that possession of the suit land was handed over to Kirtar Kaur on the date of agreement, who remained in possession till her death on 06.12.1995, after which the defendants continued in lawful possession. It was also pleaded that a criminal complaint lodged by the plaintiff culminated in FIR No. 493/2012, in which investigation allegedly confirmed the authenticity of the Power of Attorney. The defendants further relied on the fact that one Sugan Devi Kaur had filed a suit for specific performance concerning the same land, which she later withdrew upon being apprised of the defendants’ ownership.

2.2. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed four issues, including that of relief. The plaintiff examined four witnesses and produced twelve documents, whereas the defendants examined eight witnesses and exhibited thirty-three documents. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Civil Judge, Anoopgarh, by judgment and decree dated 31.08.2020, partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferre