IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 01.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement :- 11.09.2025 Partap Singh (Through LRs) ...Appellant Versus Roshan Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Kamaljeet Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate for appellant No. 1(b).

Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate withdraw Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for appellant No. 1(a)(i).

Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul, Advocate and Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 11 and 12.

***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J.

1. Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner of the suit property and that sale deed dated 11.02.1970 executed on his behalf by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 regarding suit property as illegal, null and void and ineffective against the rights of plaintiff and further for declaration that subsequent sale deeds effected by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 9 are also illegal, null and void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and are liable to be set aside with consequential relief of possession of suit property and for restraining defendants No. 2 to 9 from alienating the property to any person.

2. Briefly stated, plaintiff executed general power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 on 20.12.1960 to manage his affairs and he was acting as house hold controller of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 misused the power of attorney and by keeping plaintiff in complete dark and without his authorization entered into various transactions including the sale deed dated 11.02.1970 executed in favour of defendant No. 2 Achhra Rani. Achhra Rani is wife of business partner of defendant No. 1. The sale deed has been assailed on the grounds that it has been executed without any right and beyond the powers conferred on defendant No. 1 and without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was having no necessity to sell the property. Sale consideration is inadequate. Market value of the suit land is at least five times of the sale consideration. Defendant No. 10 is shown as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.500/- and rent is being collected by defendant No. 1 himself. No consideration has been passed to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is claiming himself to be landlord of the property which clearly shows that the sale deed is a Benami transaction. All the subsequent sale deeds executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 9 are also assailed as illegal, null and void and suit was filed.

3. Defendants No. 2 and 3 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and raised legal pleas that suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and suit is not maintainable in the present form. Defendants No. 7 and 9 filed written statement claiming themselves to be bonafide purchasers of consideration without any notice and also raised legal pleas of suit being bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of actions, suit being under valued being barred by limitation. Defendant No. 10 filed written statement admitting that defendant No. 1 was appointed attorney by the plaintiff and he was acting as house hold controller of the plaintiff. It was denied that defendant No. 1 misused the power of attorney and it was pleaded that all the transactions were entered by defendant No. 1 on behalf of the plaintiff with the full knowledge and at the instance of the plaintiff. It is denied that defendant No. 1 misused the confidence reposed in him or that he caused any loss to the plaintiff by entering into unauthorized transactions. The sale consideration was used by the plaintiff for his own personal use. It was denied that defendant No. 2 is the wife of business partner and close friend of defendant No. 1. It was alleged that sale deed is legal, valid, effective and operative and it was further pleaded that answering defendant is in possession of the suit proper