Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL, J.
Nirmal Gill - Appellant
Versus
Rattan Singh and Ors. - Respondents
RSA Nos. 2901 and 3881 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-05-2019
For the Appellant : Party-in Person.
For the Respondent:Parminder Singh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the General Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds were not validly executed and had no binding effect on the plaintiff's rights.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act - [General Power of Attorney, Sale Deeds] - Summary: The court addressed the dispute arising from the execution of a General Power of Attorney and sale deeds, finding that the plaintiff was defrauded by her step brothers and sister-in-law. The court held that the General Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds were not validly executed and had no binding effect on the plaintiff's rights. The court also found that the subsequent purchasers did not contest the case and the consideration amount was not handed over to the plaintiff. The court allowed the appeals and decreed the suits filed by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed two suits seeking declaration that a General Power of Attorney and sale deeds were illegal and not binding on her rights. The plaintiff claimed that her step brothers and sister-in-law had defrauded her of her property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the General Power of Attorney and sale deeds were not validly executed and had no binding effect on the plaintiff's rights. The court also found that the subsequent purchasers did not contest the case and the consideration amount was not handed over to the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the General Power of Attorney and sale deeds, the fraudulent nature of the transactions, and the limitation of the suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the General Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds were not validly executed and had no binding effect on the plaintiff's rights. The court also found that the subsequent purchasers did not contest the case and the consideration amount was not handed over to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and decreed the suits filed by the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
Lisa Gill, J.
This judgment shall dispose of RSA Nos. 2901 and 3881 of 2012.
2. RSA Nos. 2901 and 3881 of 2012 are taken up together for hearing and disposal as both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 03.01.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur vide which both Civil Suit Nos. 11 of 2001 and 173 of 2002 filed by the plaintiff Joginder Kaur were dismissed, as well as judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court - I, Hoshiarpur, wherein appeals filed by the plaintiff were dismissed.
3. Civil Suit No. 11 of 2001 was filed by Joginder Kaur seeking declaration to the effect that sale deeds dated 03.07.2000 and 29.06.1990 are illegal, null, void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff. Furthermore, declaration to the effect that the General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 was obtained by Harcharan Kaur-defendant No. 1 in the said suit in connivance with her husband Rattan Singh and that the plaintiff was not bound by the same or any other transaction purportedly carried out on the basis of the said General Power of Attorney. The plaintiff also sought declaration to the effect that she was the owner in possession of the land measuring 9 marlas out of 4 kanal 13 marlas detailed in the suit. Defendant-Harcharan Kaur was sought to be restrained from effecting or transferring the land in dispute in any manner on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990.
4. In Civil Suit No. 173 of 2002, plaintiff-Joginder Kaur sought a declaration to the effect that the following sale deeds allegedly executed on her behalf by her alleged attorney are null, void and not binding qua her rights:-
(i) Sale deed and mutation No. 11395 in respect to land measuring 1 kanal 6-1/2 marlas as detailed in the plaint.
(ii) Sale deed dated 03.07.1990 in respect to land measuring 34 kanal 5 marlas as detailed.
(iii) Sale deed dated 20.05.1996 registered on 22.05.1996 in respect to land measuring 2 kanal 10 marlas as detailed.
(iv) Sale deed dated 18.03.1996 executed by Harcharan Kaur in favour of Inder Pal Singh.
(v) Sale deed dated 18.03.1996 executed by Harcharan Kaur in favour of Rajinder Kaur wife of Inder Pal Singh.
5. Brief facts of the case are that Harbans Singh, father of the plaintiff, was the owner of land in Nawashahr, Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur. Harbans Singh had solemnised two marriages. Plaintiff-Joginder Kaur was born out of the wedlock between Harbans Singh and Gurbachan Kaur. Harbans Singh after the death of Gurbachan Kaur married Piar Kaur. Gurdial Singh, Rattan Singh, Narinder Pal Singh and Surjit Singh (arrayed as defendants) were born out the second marriage of Harbans Singh. Harcharan Kaur (defendant) is the wife of Rattan Singh i.e. sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the plaintiff. Harbans Singh died in the year 1963. As per the averments in the plaint in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2001, the plaintiff claimed herself to be an old lady. It is pleaded that she had cordial relations with her brothers (defendants No. 3 to 6) as well as her sister-in-law Harcharan Kaur and she often used to visit them at the village; After the death of Harbans Singh, his estate devolved in equal shares on six persons i.e. the plaintiff, her four step brothers and her step mother. It is alleged that as Gurdial Singh and Rattan Singh did not have any other source of income, the plaintiff allowed them to retain possession of the estate of Harbans Singh. Narinder Pal Singh and Surjit Singh were government employees, not living in the village. The plaintiff, it is stated, was settled in New Delhi with her husband in her matrimonial home. It is further pleaded that as the plaintiff was not dependant on her inheritance, she permitted Gurdial Singh and Rattan Singh to continue looking after the suit property while making it known to them that she had not relinquished her share in the property. Gurdial Singh - respondent, in June, 1990 approached
