Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 1563
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
L.N.Mittal, J.
Satbir Singh
Versus
Zile Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 1738 of 2006,
Decided On : MAY 3, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of a power of attorney and subsequent gift deed can be deemed fraudulent if not executed in good faith and for valid reasons.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - [Gian Kaur v. Piara Singh and another, (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 397] - The court discussed the fraudulent execution of a power of attorney and subsequent gift deed, emphasizing that the power of attorney was not required, and the gift deed was an act of fraud. The court cited the case of Gian Kaur v. Piara Singh and another, (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 397, which had similar facts and held the gift deed to be invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants, alleging that the defendant had obtained a general power of attorney and gifted the suit land, which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of, to other defendants. The plaintiff sought relief of possession of the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the power of attorney and consequent gift deed were obtained by misrepresentation and were null and void. The court also found that the suit was not barred by limitation and decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the power of attorney and gift deed, the allegation of fraud, and the limitation of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of attorney and gift deed were obtained by misrepresentation and were null and void. It also emphasized that the gift deed was an act of fraud and cited a similar case to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the judgments of the lower courts and no substantial question of law for determination.
L.N.Mittal, J.
1. This is second appeal by defendants No 2 to 4 who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below.
2. Zile Singh respondent No.l filed suit against appellants and Parmod Kumar proforma respondent No.2 (defendant No.l) alleging that plaintiff was owner in possession of suit land measuring 48 kanals 8 marlas having purchased from the Central Government under some scheme. The plaintiff had been selling his agricultural produce at the shop of defendant No.l-Commission Agent. Defendant No.l represented to the plaintiff that defendant No.l can get better income out of the said land for the plaintiff. Accordingly defendant No. 1 got executed writing dated 28.6.1996 from the plaintiff. However, about one and half months before filing of the suit, the plaintiff learnt thatdefendant No. 1 had got executed general power of attorney authorising him to alienate the suit land and accordingly defendant No.l had gifted the suit land to defendants No.2 to 4 vide gift deed dated 1.7.1996. Plaintiff challenged aforesaid general power of attorney and gift deed being null and void and also sought relief of possession of the suit land.
3. The defendants controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and raised varicus preliminary objections. The defendants have denied that the plaintiff had been selling his produce at the shop of defendant No.l.
4. Defendants rather pleaded that there was settlement that plaintiff would execute power of attorney in favour of defendant No.l so that the suit land could be sold to defendants No.2 to 4. Here it may be added that defendants No 2 to 4 who have been gifted the suit land are real brothers of the plaintiff.
5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kamal vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2002 decreed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal filed by defendants No.2 to 4 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by defendants No.2 to 4.
6. have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
7. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that proforma respondent No.2 has moved CM No.l718.C of 2009 for additional evidence. It is alleged that certified copy of entry from the register of stamp vendor which was not earlier in possession of respondent No.2 is required to be produced as additional evidence. The application is completely without any merit. Applicant-respondent No.2 has not alleged in the application that the said entry was not earlier in his knowledge. No reason has been given as to why proposed additional evidence could not be produced at appropriate stage in the trial court. It was for respondent No.2 to have obtained copy of the said entry at the appropriate stage but he did not obtain it nor he summoned stamp vendor as witness. Entry from the register of the stamp vendor which is sought to be produced as additional evidence is not even per-se admissible in evidence nor there is any prayer that stamp vendor be examined as witness to prove the said entry. Moreover respondent No.2 who was defendant No. 1 in the suit did not challenge the decree of the trial court by preferring first appeal nor challenged the judgment of the first appellate court by filing second appeal. Even otherwise the proposed additional evidence would not serve any purpose. Respondent No.2 is proforma respondent. The instant application is, therefore, misconceived and is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the statement made by the plaintiff in the witness box is contradictory to his pleadings inasmuch as the plaintiff stated in the witness box that he had given his land on Theka (lease) to defendant No.l whereas in the plaint it was pleaded that the suit land was given to defendant No.l for better management and income. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. It cannot be said that t
