Alienation of property--A right to alienate the property, cannot be taken away without the statutory force of law by merely stating in conveyance deed.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession in respect of land measuring 60 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Dauke and 19 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Raja Tal, Tehsil and District Amritsar.

2. The plaintiffs has alleged that his father was serving in Indian Army as a Soldier. He died in 1962 in China War. The government had decided to give him gallantry award in the shape of land, which was allotted on 19.8.1981 with a condition that the same cannot be alienated prior to the expiry of ban of 10 years. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 was a cleaver man who had learnt about the gallantry award and got some sort of document executed from the plaintiff on or before 17.2.1981 even before the allotment was made. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 got executed a general power of attorney and an agreement to sell in his favour, but the plaintiff denied its validity. It is further alleged that plaintiff has come to know that defendant No. 2 and 3 are asserting that they have acquired the property in dispute from defendant No. 1 on the basis of two sale deeds and has further learnt that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have sold some land out of 19 kanals 13 marlas and have mortgaged some land with defendant No. 10 for the purpose of taking loan.

3. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3, 4 to 9 and 10 filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 has alleged in the written statement that the sale deeds dated 25.1.1982 and 15.3.1982 executed by him in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are impediment in the way of the plaintiff to get relief of possession, therefore, without seeking cancellation of these two sale deeds, the suit for possession is not maintainable. It was alleged that the plaintiff himself had appointed defendant No. 1 as his general power of attorney and had provided the permission for sale and mortgage the land as well.

4. In the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3, preliminary objections were taken that the suit for possession is not maintainable and they are bonafide purchasers for consideration. They had taken all the objections which were taken by defendant No. 1 with an addition that they had spent Rs. 20,000/- for improvement of the land. Similarly, defendant Nos. 4 to 9 claimed themselves to be bonafide purchasers of the land measuring 11 kanals 5 marlas purchased at the cost of Rs. 9,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 25.11.1982. Defendant No. 10 alleged to have advanced loan to Rs. 20,000/- to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 against the land in dispute measuring 49 kanals 6 marlas which was required by them for levelling of the suit land and laying underground channels.

5. Plaintiff filed separate replications to the written statements filed by all the defendants denying their averments and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint.

6. On 7.3.1984, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPP

2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff executed a valid power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff was not competent to sell the property? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff was estopped by his act and conduct from filing this suit? OPD

6. Whether the defendants have effected improvements on the suit land. If so to what extent and to what effect? OPD

7. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD

8. Relief.

7. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial Court while deciding issue No. 1 held that the suit for possession without seeking cancellation of sale deeds by defendants No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is not maintainable. Issue No. 2 was decided against the plaintiff on the ground that the suit should have been filed for the cancellation of the sale deeds for which proper Court-fee had to be affixed on the sale consideration. Issue No. 3 was pertaining to the due execut