The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act for certain documents, and the validity and proof of a Will and a general power of attorney.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for brevity, the Code) challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below holding that the Will Ex-D-5 dated 12.6.1982 executed by Harbhajari Singh in favour of the defendant-respondents which is registered document, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and has been duly proved by the defendant-respondents. The findings of the trial court on the question of validity of general power of attorney (Ex-P6=Ex-D1) dated 8.10.1993 holding that it was validly executed has been upheld by the learned lower appellate court. However, the judgment and decree Ex.P3 and P4 suffered by the Power of Attorney in favour of other defendant-respondents have been declared illegal for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, the Registration Act).

2. There was one Kharak Singh who had three sons S/Sh. Hari Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Harbhajan Singh. The plaintiff-appellants are successor in interest of Hari Singh whereas the defendant-respondents are successor-in-interest of Gurcharan Singh. Harbhajan Singh the third brother died unmarried and issueless. Whereas the other two brothers Hari Singh and Gurcharan Singh had children who are litigating to claim the property of Harbhajan Singh. It is admitted position that the possession of the suit land is with the defendant-respondents. The basis of their possession is Mutation No. 1386 dated 20.11.1993 which in turn has been entered on account of a judgment and decree dated 20.10.1993 (Ex.P3 and P4) in favour of defendant-respondents. The decree was suffered by Gurmeet Singh defendant-respondent, one of the sons of Gurcharan Singh (who was constituted as a general power of attorney by Harbhajan Singh) in favour of other defendant-respondents. The trial Court however did not accept the judgment and decree because the decree was not registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The learned lower Appellate Court, however, did not feel the necessity of any registration of such a decree as it was concluded that the same was based on pre-existing rights of the panics. The view of the lower appellate court on the aforementioned issue reads as under:

16. It is manifestly clear from the very statement of plaintiff Puran Singh that late Harbhajan Singh had actually executed the impugned general power of attorney in favour of Gurmeet Singh and that the factum of execution of the document was very much within the knowledge of the plaintiff/appellants. Neither of the two witnesses has deposed about the alleged fraud played upon late Harbhajan Singh by Gurmeet Singh while obtaining the general power of attorney Ex.P6 = Ex.D1. The execution of the document stands proved from the very statement of plaintiff Puran Singh. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs have been able to prove, on the strength of their evidence, that since late Harbhajan Singh was in illiterate ruralite, he never intended to authorize his attorney to transfer the land in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5.

21. In the instant case, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants were equi-related to late Harbhajan Singh. The latter was a bachelor, who did not ever desire a child meaning thereby that the property was to devolve upon the heirs of his pre-deceased brothers namely late Hari Singh and late Gurcharan Singh. Since the defendants are the grand sons of late Gurcharan Singh, they definitely had a pre-existing right in the property and the decree was definitely not registrable. The impugned judgment and decree are valid documents which were rightly acted upon by the revenue authorities while sanctioning mutation No. 1386 on 20.11.1993, The plaintiffs have no case at all on that count.

3. Both the courts below have also found that the Will dated 12.6.1982 executed by late Harbhajan Singh Ex. D5 has been duly proved by the defendant-responde