The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the validity of the power of attorney and the sale deed. Lack of convincing evidence and adverse inferences drawn from non-appearance of key witnesses can lead to the declaration of the sale deed as illegal and null and void.

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur, 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 Hardeep Singh filed the suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 23 Kanals 18 Marlas detailed and described in the head note of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of village Bhamba Hazi, Tehsil and District Ferozepur and the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant n.2 with regard to the suit land on the basis of fake power of attorney dated 23.12.1997 is wrong, null and void, without consideration and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff also sought the consequential relief of injunction restraining defendant no.2 from alienating the land in dispute to some other persons and also from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land.

4. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute which was transferred to him from the Central Government on the basis of his possession. The conveyance deed in respect of the land in question was executed in his favour on 26.04.1999 registered on 26.05.1999. It is further pleaded that defendants came to the spot and declared themselves owner of the land on the basis of the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 having been executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 on the basis of power of attorney dated 23.12.1997. It was further pleaded that he never executed any such power of attorney and the same is forged and fabricated document. He is also an illiterate person and always appended his thumb impression and no document was signed by him. Balwinder Singh, the attesting witness has also not attested the said power of attorney and it does not bear his signatures. Thus, the sale deed dated 23.05.2000 executed on the basis of forged power of attorney is null and void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

5. The appellants-defendants contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that defendant no.1 was duly appointed as his general power of attorney by the plaintiff vide power of attorney dated 23.12.1997. Thereafter, defendant no.1 executed the sale deed in his capacity as general power of attorney of the plaintiff, which is legal, valid and binding on the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. The appellants-defendants denied the averments in the plaint that the said power of attorney is a forged and fabricated document and does not bears the signatures of Balwinder Singh, the attesting witness. It was further pleaded that defendant no.2 is in established possession of the land in dispute and plaintiff is trying to dispossess him in an illegal and forcible manner. With these pleas, the appellants-defendants pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

6. Plaintiff-respondent filed the replication to the written statement of defendants. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

5. Relief.

7. On appreciating the material on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent with costs.

8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgme