JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM-2853-C-2018

Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 78 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 78 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.

RSA-1154-2018 (O&M)

The defendants No. 1 to 3 are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit house measuring 0 Kanal 6 marlas 7 Sarsahies situated in Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozpur; and the Sale Deed dated 10.04.2012 Vasika No.31 alleged to be executed by defendant No.1 (being alleged General Power of Attorney of plaintiff) in favour of defendant No.2; and Sale Deed dated 10.04.2012 vasika No.30 executed by defendant No.1 being alleged General Power of Attorney of plaintiff in favour of defendant No.3 are illegal, null and void without consideration beyond the power of Power of Attorney, result of fraud, having no adverse effects on the rights of plaintiff and are liable to be set aside; with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.2 and 3 from forcibly, illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property as mentioned in heading (a) and (b) of the headnote of plaint and to alienate the same to anybody else by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange lease of in any other manner, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants are the 'defendants No. 1 to 3 '; and respondent No. 1 is the 'plaintiff'.

3. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff had purchased the suit house as mentioned in the head note of the plaint vide registered Sale Deed No. 2175 dated 15.06.1979. After purchase of the said property, it became self acquired property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing in this property. After the death of husband of the plaintiff namely, Amrit Lal, some property was inherited by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 her son, and her three daughters namely Parveen Rani, Rajni and Renu Bala. On 26.07.1996, the plaintiff and her three daughters executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the arrangement of property which was inherited by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and her daughters after the death of Amrit Lal. From the said Power of Attorney dated 26.07.1996, the defendant No.1 had sold the property of the plaintiff and her daughters by various Sale Deeds being Sale Deed No. 48 dated 25.07.1997; Sale Deed No. 697 dated 06.08.1998; Sale Deed No. 375 dated 19.06.1997; and Sale Deed No. 793 dated 22.08.1996. As the properties sold by way of the above said Sale Deeds formed part of the property inherited by the plaintiff and her daughters upon the death of Amrit Lal and were included in the Power of Attorney dated 26.07.1996, the plaintiff and her daughters did not challenge the said Sale Deeds. However, the said Power of Attorney in no manner included the suit house. Thereafter, defendant No.1 misused the General Power of Attorney dated 26.07.1996 and got two Sale Deeds executed, one in favour of his son defendant No.2 Sumit Kumar, and the second in favour of his wife Indu defendant No.3 in respect of the suit property without any consideration. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the suit property being the self acquired property of the plaintiff, she had never given any authority to the defendant No.1 to sell the same, even through General Power of Attorney dated 26.07.1996. As such, declaration was sought that Sale Deeds No. 30 and 31 both dated 10.04.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 are illegal, null and void.

4. It was further contended that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit proper