The validity and authenticity of a general power of attorney in property disputes, and the importance of proper framing of issues and the opportunity to lead evidence.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present regular second appeal has been filed by appellant-Gurmej Singh Sokhi, who was plaintiff before the trial Court, to challenge judgment and decree dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby, judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad has been reversed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the appeal are that appellant-plaintiff-Gurmej Singh Sokhi filed a suit through his power of attorney holder-Sh. Dilawar Singh Sangwan seeking declaration that GPA dated 02.06.2006 and sale deed dated 05.02.2008 were void and liable to be cancelled. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out further construction and alienating the suit property. He also sought a decree of possession of the suit property i.e., Plot No.B-63 measuring 444 square yards situated in Ashoka Enclave, Extension No. II (Revenue Estate of Village Palla, New Sector 37, Faridabad). As per contents of the plaint, the plaintiff was residing at Nairobi (Kenya) and was unable to pursue the suit himself and appointed Sh. Dilawar Singh Sangwan as his power of attorney to pursue the case on his behalf. Originally, he was resident of Jalandhar City but because of business, he had shifted to Nairobi (Kenya) where he had been residing for the last 50 years. Defendants hatched a conspiracy to deprive him of his suit property by impersonation and got executed GPA No.2370 dated 02.06.2006 in their favour, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar. It was also mentioned that even the photograph of the person, who impersonated himself as the plaintiff was affixed on the GPA but that person was not impleaded as party as his whereabouts were not known and he could not be traced even by the Police. The defendants joined some close relations of the plaintiff in the conspiracy and illegally procured the original title deed of the suit property, which was lying in his ancestral House No.548, Model Town, Jalandhar. The matter was reported to the Police. On the basis of said GPA, a sale deed of the suit property was executed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, namely, Chuni Lal and Rajat Gupta for a consideration of Rs. 20 lacs vide registered sale deed No.24393 dated 05.02.2008. On knowing the fact of cheating and forgery, the plaintiff reported the matter to the Police through e-mail and FIR No.110 dated 26.04.2008 was got registered. As per case of the plaintiff, he was not even present in India at the time of execution of sale deed and GPA was executed by a fictitious person representing himself to be the plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff never put his signatures on GPA and never authorized defendants No.3 and 4 to execute any sale deed.

3. Written statement was filed by defendants No.1 and 4 by raising preliminary objections of locus-standi, maintainability, cause of action and concealment of true facts etc. It was also stated in the written statement that the suit property was purchased by defendants No.1 and 2 through registered sale deed dated 05.02.2008 and the amount of consideration was also paid by them to defendants No.3 and 4, who were GPA of plaintiff-Gurmej Singh Sokhi. The Will executed by plaintiff- Gurmej Singh Sokhi, the registered GPA executed in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 and original sale deed relating to suit property were handed over to Gurmej Singh Sokhi. Defendants No.1 and 2 also verified that defendants No.3 and 4 and made payment to Gurmej Singh Sokhi through Bank draft. The Building plan was also sanctioned by Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and prior permission was also obtained from Municipal Corporation for raising construction. No dues certificate was also obtained after depositing land tax with the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. It was also the stand of the respondents-defendants that they became absolute owner in possession of the suit property.

4. On apprais