IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment Reserved On 30.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on 01.12.2025 NOOR MOHAMMAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS SAMMA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Mr. Kamaljeet Saraf, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff–appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.05.1990 passed by the Court of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, whereby their suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. Appellant is further aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.04.1992 passed by the District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the first appeal preferred by him.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff–appellant in his suit for declaration and permanent injunction was that he is the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 25 kanals 4 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Jehtana, District Gurgaon. A part of the suit property was under mortgage with defendant–respondent No. 1, another part was under mortgage with Kanwar Khan and Umrao Khan, brothers of defendant–respondent No. 1, and yet another portion was under mortgage with Din Mohammad, another brother of defendant– respondent No. 1. The plaintiff–appellant asserted that he had never appointed defendant–respondent No. 1 as his general power of attorney, nor had he executed the power of attorney dated 28.09.1979, which was registered on 12.10.1979. He contended that the alleged power of attorney in favour of defendant–respondent No. 1 is a false, fictitious, and bogus document. It was further averred that on the basis of the said forged power of attorney, defendant–respondent No. 1 illegally and without consideration sold the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 17.05.1987 to defendants No. 2 to 4, who are his wife and wives of brother of defendant–respondent No. 1. The plaintiff–appellant maintained that the sale deed, being a bogus document, is liable to be declared void ab initio and has no effect on his rights. It was also asserted that the plaintiff–appellant had preferred an application for redemption before the A.C. I^st Grade, Ferozepur Jhirka, which was, however, withdrawn on the ground that he was informed that he is not the owner of the suit property.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants–respondents, who filed a joint written statement raising several preliminary objections regarding maintainability, improper valuation, and that the plaintiffs–appellants were estopped from filing the suit by their own acts and conduct. It was asserted that defendants No. 2 to 4 are the owners of the suit property. They claimed that the plaintiffs–appellants had duly appointed defendant–respondent No. 1 as their power of attorney, and in that capacity defendant–respondent No. 1 had sold the suit property in favour of the other defendants–respondents by executing a registered sale deed. It was further contended that the sale consideration had been duly paid to the plaintiff–appellant through the said attorney. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP

2. Whether sale deed dated 27.5.1985 is illegal void and not binding right of the plaintiff ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the power of attorney dated 28.9.1979 registered on

12.10.1979 is void, illegal, and is not binding on the plaintiff as alleged? OPP

7. Relief.”

5. The learned Court