Execution of a general power of attorney and an agreement to sell does not confer title unless supported by a formal application for specific performance under the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT

Amarjot Bhatti, J.

The appellant-Kanta Devi has filed regular second appeal against impugned judgment and decree dated 06.05.2015 vide which appeal preferred against judgment and decree dated 04.09.2013 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara was dismissed.

2. As per the facts of the case, Kanta Devi-appellant/plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring property No.404 situated in Guru Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara with the boundaries as detailed therein and further restraining the defendants from raising any sort of construction over this property illegally and forcibly along with the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the said property in its original residential house after demolishing the superstructure of shops raised two months ago and to remove the Malba therefrom and also suit for possession of the house in dispute.

Initially the suit was filed against Charan Singh-defendant No.1 and Jagjit Singh-defendant No.2 was impleaded subsequently. The case of the plaintiff was that she is a co-sharer along with her daughters namely Bhavishya Rekha Rai and Hemlata Rai and son Pankaj Rai. Originally the property was owned and possessed by her husband Dilbagh Rai who had already expired and the property was inherited by her along with her children in equal shares. It was claimed that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the said property. They were influential persons and wanted to grab the suit property. They were also extending threats to alienate the same and further change the nature of the property. They were also threatening to raise construction illegally and forcibly. In the absence of plaintiff, the defendant illegally and forcibly demolished the residential house No.404 about two months ago and raised construction of shops and changed the nature of property from residential to commercial property. Then they were further threatening to alienate the same. The defendants had taken illegal, forcible possession of this property in February 2007. The defendants were requested to deliver back the vacant possession of the property but they had refused and ultimately the suit was filed.

3. Notice of the suit was given to both the defendants. They had filed separate written statements by taking the same stand that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. The plaintiff had concealed material facts from the Court. She was not co-owner of the property in question. This property was originally owned by Dilbagh Rai who appointed Brij Lal Kalra as his General Power of Attorney holder. The registered General Power of Attorney dated 27.05.1982 is placed on record. Brij Lal Kalra on the basis of aforesaid General Power of Attorney of Dilbagh Rai sold the suit property bearing No.404 along with other properties bearing No.402 and 403 situated in Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara along with his wife Usha Kalra, in favour of Surjit Singh, Charan Singh and Jagjit Singh. Regarding this sale, an agreement to sell dated 26.11.1985 was executed by receiving a sum of Rs. 6 lacs as full and final sale consideration regarding plots No.402, 403 and 404. Accordingly, the plot No.404 at Guru Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara was in the ownership and possession of Jagjit Singh. This fact was well within the knowledge of plaintiff. The site plan produced on record was incorrect. The suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. She had no locus standi to file the present suit. The defendant No.2 was in possession of demised premises in part performance of agreement to sell dated 26.11.1985 and the other defendant has no concern with the property in dispute. It was prayed that the suit fil