Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- CM No. 6221-C of 2016

This application has been filed for preponing of the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the present application stands allowed and the appeal is taken up today itself.

CM No. 12859-C of 2015

This application has been filed for placing on record documents Annexures A-1 to A-20.

Heard on the application.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application stands allowed and the documents Annexures A-1 to A-20 are taken on record subject to just objections of the opposite party.

R.S.A No. 4878 of 2015(O&M)

The present appeal has been preferred by appellantdefendant no.5-Manjit Singh against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

3. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 Kuldip Kaur has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 31.05.2005 executed by defendants no.2 to 4 in favour of appellant-defendant no.5 on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 01.08.2001 being legal heirs of Raghbir Singh with respect to the shop which is portion of house No. 1142/1143 comprised in Khasra Nos. 1870/1733, 1869/1733 situated at Dakoha, Tehsil and District Jalandhar is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside. Plaintiff has also challenged the power of attorney dated 09.06.2000 allegedly executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1. In the consequential relief, she sought the relief of possession of the shop in dispute along with the recovery of Rs. 2,16,000/- on account of the mesne profit for use and occupation of the shop in dispute w.e.f. 26.10.2004 to 25.10.2007 along with interest.

4. As per the case of the plaintiff, she is owner of the property no. 1142/1143 situated at Dakoha, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Defendant no.1 Gursharan Kaur is the real sister of husband of the plaintiff. Surinder Singh, the husband of defendant no.1 along with one Surinder Singh hatched criminal conspiracy and fabricated the power of attorney dated 09.06.2000 in favour of defendant no.1 Gursharan Kaur. The said power of attorney is false, forged and fabricated document. The same was never executed by plaintiff neither it bears her signatures/thumb impressions. She never authorized defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed dated 01.08.2001 in favour of Raghubir Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants no.2 to 4. That the legal heirs of Raghubir Singh has further executed the sale deed dated 31.05.2005 in favour of defendant no.5-Manjit Singh (appellant) on the basis of the said sale deed dated 01.08.2001. The sale deed dated 31.05.2005 is result of fraud as Raghubir Singh was neither owner nor having any right in the disputed property. The appellant-defendant no.5 took the possession of the disputed property forcibly and illegally on 31.05.2005. It is further pleaded that a criminal case bearing FIR No. 243 dated 12.12.2000, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 IPC was registered against the defendants and other persons on account of committing forgery as the alleged power of attorney was never executed by the plaintiff. The same is false, forged and fabricated document. Hence, the suit.

5. The suit has been contested by the defendants by filing the separate written statements. Defendants no.1 to 4 pleaded that plaintiff has appointed defendant no.1 Gursharan Kaur as her power of attorney, which was duly registered at Amritsar authorizing defendant no.1 to deal with the suit property in the manner she likes. The said power of attorney is legal and genuine and plaintiff is estopped to claim that the said document does not bear her signatures/thumb impressions. It was further pleaded that defendant no.1 executed the sal