The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity and execution of the Will dated 29.3.1971, which determined the ownership of the property in dispute and the authority of the power of attorney holder in securing possession.

Sabina, J.

1. Plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for possession, which was decreed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.1994. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No. 1 to 3 and 11 preferred an appeal, the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.1995. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in paras 1 to 5 of its judgment read as under :

"1. Rajinder Kumar son of Shri Faqir Chand, instituted suit for the possession of shop No.B.I.X.1719, situated in Saban Bazar, Ludhiana, shown as red in plan attached to the plaint against, Harbans Lal and others. It is alleged in the plaint that Faqir Chand was the owner of this property. He was father of Rajinder Kumar plaintiff. Earlier this building was bearing No. B.VII.1384. Shri Faqir Chand had purchased this property vide sale deed dated 14.1.1971. Shri Faqir Chand died on 22.7.1978. Shri Rajinder Kumar, plaintiff, is the owner of this property (shop) as late Shri Faqir Chand had executed a legal and valid will in favour of Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar was residing in England. He had asked his sister Shrimati Amra Wati to manage to this property on his behalf. She was allowed to use the shop, but she had no right to let out the property or to transfer its possession to anybody. Naresh Kumar is the son of Shrimati Amra Wati. Naresh Kumar alleges that he had put Harbans Lal and his two sons in possession of the shop. It is a double storeyed building. Madan Lal, Brij and Kewal are the sons of Parduman Lal, who was a tenant on the first floor. Madan Lal, Brij and Kewal, were in occupation of the first floor. Building was an old construction and was in dilapidated condition. In the month of Sept., 1988, the property fell down during rains. Shrimati Darshana D/o Parduman Lal died as a result of the collapse of the first floor during rains in Sept., 1988. Whole of first floor caved in. Roof of the ground floor also gave way and there does not exist any first floor now and the ground floor is also in a dilapidated condition. Sons of Parduman Lal are thus not in possession of the first floor as there is no first floor in existence. Parduman Lals sons have been impleaded as defendants so that no complication arose at later stage. Harish Kumar was also impleaded as defendant as a measure of caution as he is the son of Harbans Lal. He might set up that he is in. possession of the shop.

2. Harbans Lal and his sons Ashok Kumar and Amarjit took possession of the terrace and stairs after the first floor had caved in. It is alleged in the plaint that he(Rajinder Kumar) is entitled to possession as he is owner. Harbans Lal and his sons are in unauthorized possession of the shop. Amra Wati had been authorized only to manage and use the property. She had not been authorized to let out the shop. If she or her sons had let out the shop the tenancy created by them was illegal. If Naresh kumar had created any tenancy in favour of Harbans Lal and his sons that is of no consequence and is not binding upon him (Rajinder Kumar). Tenancy of the first floor has come to an end with the collapse of the first floor. Rajinder Kumar is residing in England. Harbans Lal and his sons are trying to take advantage of his absence and are threatening to raise construction. It is alleged in the plaint that he has appointed Shri Pawan Kumar Puri as his attorney vide power of attorney dated 20.12.88 to take possession and to file suit. Amra Wati and Kanta are his sisters. Sarswati is his mother. They have been impleaded being proper parties. In nut-shell Rajinder Kumar claimed possession of the shop on account of his being owner and on account of Harbans Lal and his sons, being in unauthorized possession thereof having been inducted by one, whose authority did not extend to the creation of tenancy.

3. During the pendency of he suit property was