JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. The appellants are successors of original defendants. They have suffered two concurrent decrees of learned Courts below, which have been assailed by them in the instant regular second appeal.

2. Facts

2(i) A Civil Suit was filed by the respondent for declaration that a General Power of Attorney (in short GPA) dated 22.12.1997 allegedly executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1 was fictitious, void and illegal. Sale deed dated 23.01.1998 registered on 01.04.1998 on the basis of this very GPA by defendant No. 1 in favour of his son/defendant No. 2 qua the share of plaintiff in the suit land, total measuring 17-11-8 bighas situated in mauza Dadwas, illaqua Neeru, Sub Tehsil Bali Chowki, District Mandi was also null, void, illegal and inoperative. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was also prayed for restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from use and enjoyment of the suit property to the extent of his share and in the alternative, a decree for joint possession to the extent of ½ share in the suit land in case of plaintiff’s ouster from joint possession in the suit land was prayed. Compensation/mesne profit for wrongful enjoyment and usurption of yield of plaintiff’s ½ share in the suit land till delivery of its joint possession was also sought.

The foundational facts set forth in the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were cousin brothers and joint owners of the suit land. Defendant No. 2 was son of defendant No.

1. In order to wrongfully grab ½ share of the plaintiff in the joint suit land, defendant No. 1 prepared a false and fictitious GPA of the plaintiff in his favour. On the basis of this fraudulent GPA, defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of his son/defendant No. 2 on 23.01.1998, registered on 01.04.1998. The fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 16.04.1998, immediately whereafter he represented to the concerned revenue authorities for not attesting the mutation on the basis of the sale deed and also reported the matter to the police against the defendants.

2(ii) Stand of the defendants was that GPA was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1. On the strength of GPA, defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed in favour of his son-defendant No. 2. In the amended written statement, a further plea was taken that defendant No. 1 had purchased 17 bighas of land (suit land). The parties were enjoying deep cordial relations with each other. After purchasing the suit land in village Dadwas, defendant No. 1 got plaintiff’s name entered to the extent of ½ share in the suit land. There was an understanding between defendant No.1 and plaintiff that defendant No.1 would procure nautor land in plaintiff’s name whereafter the suit land in its entirety would belong to the defendants. Defendant No. 1 managed to procure 10 bighas of nautor land in favour of plaintiff and for this reason, the GPA was executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 with respect to the suit land.

2(iii) Evidence was led by the parties. Learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court after considering the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties held that GPA dated 22.12.1997 was fictitious, fraudulent, illegal and, therefore, inoperative. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed in entirety. Aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant regular second appeal.

3. This second appeal was admitted on 04.03.2009 on the following two substantial questions of law :-

“1. Whether the trial court has wrongly dismissed the application of the appellants/defendants Under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) of Civil Procedure Code for production of agreement dated 7.4.1996 executed by respondent/plaintiff in favour of appellant No. 1 which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellants ?

2. Whether the first appellate court has also wrongly dismissed the application of the appellants Under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code for produ