The judgment confirms that a suit can challenge forged documents affecting property rights and reaffirms co-sharer rights in joint possession cases.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

CM-3397-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 both 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 question having been inherited from deceased-Jasvinder Singh (husband of respondent No.1-Ranjeet Kaur and father of respondent No.2-Sheetal), respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration assailing the General Power of Attorney (for short, "GPA") No.333 dated 27.01.2007, allegedly executed by them in favour of Inder Singh-appellant No.1/defendant No.1 (father-in-law of respondent No.1 and grand-father of respondent No.2), besides challenging the sale deed No.2757 dated 28.05.2007, whereby the aforementioned Inder Singh alienated the suit property in favour of Rajender Pal Singh-appellant No.2/defendant No.2 (brother-in-law of respondent No.1 and uncle of respondent No.2). It has been further pleaded that no such GPA dated 27.01.2007 was ever executed by respondents-plaintiffs in favour of Inder Singh-appellant No.1/defendant No.1 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 deceased-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 27.01.2007 was a registered document, validly executed by respondents-plaintiffs in favour of Inder Singh-appellant No.1 and based thereupon, respondents/plaintiffs, transferred their 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 respondents-plaintiffs holding the GPA dated 27.01.2007 as well as the sale deed dated 28.05.2007 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.333 dated 27.01.2007 and the sale deed dated 28.05.2007. He also submits that no evidence at all was proved on