The burden of proof rests on the party asserting forgery, and co-ownership entitles plaintiffs to seek declarations without claiming separate possession.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

CM-3387-C-2020

Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 100 days in re-filing the appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and gone through the contents of the application, duly supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out for the purpose of condoning the delay of 100 days in re-filing the appeal. Accordingly, delay of 100 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed.

Main case

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 05.09.2018 and 01.05.2019 passed by the Courts below, whereby a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed at the instance of respondents-plaintiffs, has been decreed.

2. Admittedly, the parties are closely related to each other. The short pedigree table is formulated hereunder:-

Inder Singh

Jasvinder Singh

died on 22.11.2015

Ranjit Kaur

(widow)

Harpreet

(daughter)

Jasmeen

(daughter)

Sheetal

(daughter)

Amit Pal

(son)

Rajinder Pal Singh

3. Claiming themselves to be owners/co-sharers in the property in dispute i.e. House No.3E-21A, BP NIT, Faridabad, measuring 300 Sq. yards having been inherited from their deceased father, namely, Jasvinder Singh to the extent of 30 Sq. yards each, respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration assailing the General Power of Attorney (for short, "GPA") No.A-4/346 dated 29.08.2009, allegedly executed by them in favour of their grandfather, namely, Inder Singh-appellant No.1/defendant No.1, besides challenging the sale deed No.12133 dated 20.10.2009, whereby the aforementioned Inder Singh alienated the suit property in favour of their uncle, namely, Rajender Pal Singh i.e. appellant No.2/defendant No.2. It has been further pleaded that no such GPA dated 29.08.2009 was ever executed by respondents-plaintiffs in favour of their grand-father-Inder Singh and thus, respondents-plaintiffs were owners in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of their share i.e. 30 sq. yards each having been inherited by them from their father-Jasvinder Singh, who happened to be owner to the extent of ½ share along with appellant No.2-defendant No.2 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14.03.2005, besides claiming injunction for restraining appellants-defendants from alienating or transferring the suit property in any manner.

4. Upon notice, appellants-defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement while submitting that the GPA dated 29.08.2009 was a registered document, validly executed by respondents-plaintiffs in favour of Inder Singh-appellant No.1 and based thereupon, respondents/plaintiffs, transferred their respective shares qua the property in question, in favour of Rajinder Pal Singh i.e. appellant No.2.

5. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2018, decreed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs holding the GPA dated 29.08.2009 as well as the sale deed dated 20.10.2009 to be illegal and void documents. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants-defendants filed first appeal, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019.

6. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case, the respondents being the plaintiffs were to stand on their own legs and were to prove their case as regards the forgery & fabrication of the GPA No.A-4/346 dated 29.08.2009 and the sale deed dated 20.10.2009. He also submits that no evidence at all was produced on record, so as to establish any kind of forgery in th