IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.09.2025 Gurdeep Singh (now deceased) through his LRs and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jameet Singh (now deceased) through his LRs and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that Harbaksh Singh was a common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. Harbaksh Singh had died around 1960 leaving behind 4 sons and 4 daughters. Thereafter, entire property was divided equally amongst all 9 heirs. Then his wife Harnam Kaur had also expired. Harjit Kaur, daughter of Harbaksh Singh died on 03.06.1994. Plaintiffs No. 6 to 13 are the heirs of Harjit Kaur also known as Surjit Kaur. It was alleged that Defendant No.1 stating himself to be General Power of Attorney of plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and of Surjit Kaur and of defendant No. 2, had executed 6 Sale Deeds in favour of his sons/defendants No. 3 to 5 with regard to the suit land. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed the present seeking declaration that the said Sale Deeds are illegal, null and void as the plaintiffs had never appointed defendant No.1 as their General Power of Attorney. It was further pleaded that as there was dispute of land with the owner of adjacent land, defendant No. 1 had approached plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and Surjit Kaur to authorize him to contest the matter. Therefore, limited Power of Attorney to the above effect was given to the defendant No. 1 as they believed defendant No. 1, being real brother; and had given their thumb impressions on the blank paper. However, defendant No.1 had fraudulently converted the same into General Power of Attorney and executed 6 Sale Deeds Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 without consideration and delivered the possession of the aforesaid property to defendants No. 3 to 6. With these pleadings, suit was filed on

31.08.1994.

3. Upon notice, the suit was resisted by defendant No. 1 and 3 by filing their respective written statements. The remaining defendants did not put in appearance and were proceeded against ex parte. During pendency of the suit, defendant No. 3 was also exparte. Defendant No.1 and 3 resisted the claim of the plaintiffs by taking a plea that suit was time barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC; the defendant alone was owner of suit property; the General Power of Attorney dated 19.07.1960 is legal, valid and genuine document, and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. Plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of defendant No.1 re-asserting the averments made in the plaint and denying those made in the written statement.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD

2. Whether the suit is barred under order 2 rule 2 C.P.C?OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and injunction prayed for ?OPP

3-A. Whether suit is within limitation ?OPP

4. Whether suit has been valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPP

5. Relief.”

6. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fazilka vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2017. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiffs no.1 and 2.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that amongst the 4 brothers and 4 sisters, 3 brothers and 4 sisters are on one side and one brother who is defendant No.1 is on the other side. It is submitted that learned Courts b