The agency created in favor of the defendant continued to remain in force even after the death of the principal, and the registered documents carry a presumption that they were genuinely executed.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The Regular Second Appeals in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, are regulated by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Five Judge Bench in Pankajakshi v/s Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157. Under Section 41, the High Court is entitled to reappreciate the evidence if the judgments passed by the Courts below not only reflect misreading of evidence but also suffer from perversity.

2. In the considered opinion of this Court, the following issues/questions arise, for adjudication

1. Where the agent has an interest in the subject matter, then whether, on the death of the principal, the agency created by executing General Power of Attorney with respect to the immovable property along with the agreement to sell, the Special Power of Attorney, the Will, the affidavit and the other Power of Attorney will cease to be effective?

2. Whether the registered documents produced in evidence will have precedence over the oral evidence?

3. Whether the Court should draw an adverse inference when the plaintiff, despite specific directions of the Court, fails to disclose the particulars which are, in his knowledge?

3. The defendant assails the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (Sh. Rajinder Kumar son of late Sh. Bishamber Dass) filed a suit for possession by ejectment of the defendant from one of his shops. He claimed the decree of possession on the ground that the tenancy in favour of the defendant (late Sh. Diwan Chand Chowdhary) has been terminated. The defendant, while filing the written statement, denied the relationship of landlord-tenant and in fact, claimed that the premises are owned by his wife Smt. Prakash Devi, who has constructed the shop in dispute as well as the nearby shops on a plot bearing Khasra No. 165. It was asserted that late Sh. Bishamber Dass, the plaintiffs father was the owner of 5 biswas of plot comprised in Khasra No.165, which was purchased by an agreement to sell dated 01.02.1984, on payment of the entire sale consideration. Late Sh. Bishamber Dass also executed a registered Will, registered General Power of Attorney, registered Special Power of Attorney and an affidavit on 01.02.1984. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney, late Sh. Diwan Chand Chowdhary transferred the property in favour of his wife Smt. Prakash Devi vide sale deed dated 14.02.1992. The defendant, after the purchase, constructed various shops on the plot in question and started running his business while letting out his other shops to different tenants and has been receiving the rent from the other tenanted shops.

5. The plaintiff filed a replication while submitting that Smt. Prakash Devi has nothing to do with the property as late Sh. Bishamber Dass neither executed any agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, registered Will or affidavit nor late Sh. Bishamber Dass has received the sale consideration. Alternatively, it was submitted that Sh. Bishamber Dass died on 12.07.1984, therefore, the General Power of Attorney, if any, ceased to be effective from the date of his death.

6. On appreciation of the pleadings, the trial Court culled out the following issues:-

"i) Whether the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by the plaintiff by serving a valid notice? OPP

ii) If issue No.l is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the ejectment of the defendant? OPP

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,000/- on account of arrears of rent and interest? OPP

iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

v) Whether the premises is owned by Parkash Devi? OPD "

vi) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPP

vii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary/ partie