The judgment established the importance of registration for documents, the presumption of truth for registered documents, and the impermissibility of property fragmentation in Chandigarh.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. The appellants-defendant Nos.5 and 6 are aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit for partition and rendition of account relating to SCO No.273, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh and for declaration that the power of attorney alleged to have been registered on 14.08.1996 before the Sub Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh Ex.DW10/B has been decreed by drawing preliminary decree and the agreement to sell, irrevocable General Power of Attorney and the Will alleged to be executed and registered in the office of Sub Registrar of Chandigarh on 14.08.1996 had been held to be result of fraud, forgery and impersonation, much less, no bearing on the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property, in essence, the documents to the extent of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff have been set aside and she had been held to be owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property and held entitled for its partition and rendition of account.

2. Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate and Ms. Japneet Kaur, Advocate appearing for the appellants in support of his arguments submitted that the property situated in Chandigarh i.e. SCO No.273, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, as per the existing bye laws, cannot be partitioned. He submitted that Jagdev Kaur, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and rendition of the account of the aforementioned SCO No.273, Sector 35-D, Chandiarh viz-aviz challenging only one power of attorney dated 14.08.1996, Ex.DW10/B on the ground that her husband, Hakam Singh, had been managing the building after its completion and had been letting out the premises and collecting rent. Her husband Hakam Singh and Gurjeet Pal Singh allegedly conspired together with Som Raj Sharma, Advocate, Vinod Kumar Mahajan and Reeta Mahajan by forging the power of attorney dated 14.08.1996 and on the basis of said power of attorney, some agreements have been arrived at, much less, some payments have also been received. Even it is also the pleaded case of the plaintiff that she approached the police on 21.09.1996. He further submitted that as per the averments in para 9 of the plaint, it has been stated that Vinod Kumar Mahajan and Reeta Mahajan have produced the copy of the alleged power of attorney before the police, which was never executed by the plaintiff, much less, she never appeared before the office of Sub Registrar. There was also a pleading in the plaint that her signatures must have been secured by misrepresentation and fraud. It is in this background of the matter, the aforementioned suit was filed.

3. The applicants-defendants appeared upon notice, filed the detailed written statement and contested the suit by filing numerous preliminary objections viz-a-viz the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the power of attorney in question was validly executed by Jagdev Kaur and the property in question had been validly sold by all the three co-sharers in their favour through agreement to sell dated 14.08.1996, Ex.DW10/A entered into by the plaintiff, Hakam Singh and Gurjeet Pal Singh, defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively, with appellants-defendant Nos.5 and 6 and the aforementioned agreement to sell had never been challenged. Even other documents i.e. irrevocable general power of attorney, Ex.DW10/C executed by her, Hakam Singh, defendant No.1 and Gurjeet Pal Singh, defendant No.2 in favour of T.R. Mahajan i.e. father of appellant No.1 and also in favour of Santosh Kumar Gupta, Wills Ex.DW10/E to Ex.DW10/G executed by the aforementioned persons in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6, power of attorney dated 23.07.1986, Ex.DW4/A, executed by Jagdev Kaur, Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh son of Hakam Singh and Gurjeet Pal Singh son of Hakam Singh in favour of Hakam Singh, have not been challenged, much less, the aforementioned power of attorney i.e. Ex.DW4/A had not been cancelled so far. Even the agreement to sell dated