The burden of proof regarding the validity of executory documents lies with the party alleging their legitimacy in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

CM-3395-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 13.12.2018 and 01.05.2019 passed by both the Courts below, whereby a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff, 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 himself to be owner/co-sharer in the property in dispute i.e. House No.3E-21-A, BP NIT, Faridabad, measuring 300 Sq. yards having been inherited from his deceased father, namely, Jasvinder Singh to the extent of 30 sq. yards each, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration assailing the General Power of Attorney (for short, "GPA") No.877 dated 27.02.2012, allegedly executed by him in favour of his grandfather, namely, Inder Singh-appellant No.1/defendant No.1, besides challenging the sale deed No.6742 dated 09.09.2013, whereby the aforementioned Inder Singh alienated the suit property in favour of his uncle, namely, Rajender Pal Singh i.e. appellant No.2/defendant No.2. It has been further pleaded that no such GPA dated 27.02.2012 was ever executed by respondent-plaintiff in favour of his grand-father-Inder Singh and thus, respondent-plaintiff was owner in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of his share i.e. 30 sq. yards having been inherited from his 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 27.02.2012 was a registered document, validly executed by respondent-plaintiff in favour of Inder Singh-appellant No.1 and based thereupon, respondent-plaintiff, transferred his share 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 13.12.2018, decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff holding the GPA dated 27.02.2012 as well as the sale deed dated 09.09.2023 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 respondent being the plaintiff was to stand on his own legs and was to prove his case as regards the forgery or fabrication of the GPA No.877 dated 27.02.2012 and the sale deed dated 09.09.2013. He also submits that no evidence at all was produced on record, so as to establish any kind of forgery in the aforementioned two documents and thus, the suit filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.

Learned coun