Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
Harjinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar and others - Respondents
RSA No. 3630 of 2015 (O&M).
Decided On : 12-01-2017
Joint Hindu Family Property - Ancestral Property - Punjab Custom - [Joint Hindu Family Property] - [Punjab Custom] - [Mutation Ex.DX/1, where A.C. IInd Grade has sanctioned the mutation on 19-11-1972 of the suit property on the basis of a decree dated 06-09-1971, passed by Sub Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib in Civil Suit No. 393 and whereby the property was mutated to Tek Singh, Roop Singh and Gurjant Singh sons of Ujaggar Singh. So, as per mutation Ex.DX1, the property came to Gurjant Singh defendant/ respondent No. 11 by way of a Court Decree. As such, Gurjant Singh had not inherited the property by way of survivorship. So, the learned lower Court has rightly held that the suit property is not ancestral and co-parcenary property of Joint Hindu Family. As such, during the lifetime of Gurjant Singh the appellant/plaintiff has no right to challenge the execution of Power of Attorney executed by defendant No. 11 or sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 on the basis of that Power of Attorney, as during his lifetime, Gurjant Singh alone had right to revoke the Power of Attorney executed by him and he had every right to deal with the property in whatever manner, he liked. Gurjant Singh being exclusive owner of the suit property has every right to alienate the same during his lifetime and the appellant/plaintiff has no right to challenge the transactions carried out by Gurjant Singh during the lifetime of Gurjant Singh. As such, there is no illegality in the findings recorded by the lower Court and appeal of the appellant/plaintiff is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed with costs and judgment and decree sheet passed by the learned Lower Court is hereby affirmed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming ownership of ancestral land. The court dismissed the suit based on the finding that the property was not ancestral and co-parcenary property of the joint Hindu family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property was not ancestral and co-parcenary property of the joint Hindu family, and therefore, the appellant had no right to challenge the execution of Power of Attorney or sale deed through Power of Attorney by Gurjant Singh.
Issues: Ownership of the land, validity of the Power of Attorney and sale deeds, entitlement to injunction, time-barred suit, valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary parties, and bonafide purchaser status of defendants No.7 to 10.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant had no right to challenge the transactions carried out by Gurjant Singh during his lifetime as the property was not ancestral and co-parcenary property of the joint Hindu family.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower court were affirmed.
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed by appellant-plaintiff Harjinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib as well as judgment and decree dated 23.10.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.202 of 20.07.2007 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib, by virtue of which suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant against respondents-defendants Pawan Kumar and others (hereinafter referred to as the “respondents”) was dismissed and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.
2. The facts, in precise, are as under:-
Appellant Harjinder Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 42 Kanals 04 Marlas being 844/2523th share out of the land of 126 Kanals 03 Marlas vide Jamabandi for the year 1995-1996, detail of which was given in the head note of the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of village Chak Bir Sarkar, Tehsil and District Muktsar, is owned by him, his father, mother and brothers (respondents No.11 to 15) as it was purchased by his grandfather out of joint Hindu family income. The appellant further sought declaration that the General Power of Attorney dated 29.01.1998 and registered on 28.02.1998 by his father Gurjant Singh (respondent No.11) was a forged and fabricated document as had been prepared by misusing the signatures of his father on blank papers. The sale deed dated 16.09.1999 and registered on 17.09.1999 executed by Pawan Kumar on the basis of the said General Power of Attorney was also illegal, null and void and ineffective. The sale deed executed on 20.07.2007 by Vinod Kumar (respondent No.2) in favour of Ashok Kumar etc. (respondents No.7 to 10) and the mutation based on the said sale deed were also challenged as illegal, null and void. By way of consequential relief, a decree of permanent injunction restraining respondents No.1 to 3 and 7 to 10 from dispossessing him from the suit property except in due process of law was sought.
3. The appellant alleged that his father Gurjant Singh was the Karta of the joint Hindu family. He was addicted to vices and used to unnecessarily spend money on his bad habits. He, his mother and sister were unable to stop him from his said acts. He had sold land comprised in Killa No.25/1 to Makhan Singh for Rs.50,000/-. So the question of executing a General Power of Attorney dated 29.01.1998 in favour of Pawan Kumar did not arise. Otherwise also, his father Gurjant Singh had no right to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of Pawan Kumar when the property was joint Hindu coparcenary property of the parties. Possession on the suit property was claimed by the appellant since the year 1990.
4. Joint written statement was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 raising various preliminary objections and controverting the claim of the appellant. In the written statement filed by respondents No.7 to 10 they claimed to be bonafide purchasers for consideration and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Respondents No.11 to 13 filed a joint written statement pleading that Gurjant Singh (respondent No.11) has already filed a suit regarding the suit land which is pending before Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib and in that suit Gurjant Singh has claimed cancellation of sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 and has also sought decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land further. They further alleged that Pawan Kumar, being a commission agent, had committed fraud with him and had got prepared a false Power of Attorney on the basis of which he executed the sale deed.
6. On the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether power of attorney dated 29.01.1998 executed by the defendant No.11 in favour of de
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
