IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:03.12.2025 Bikkar Singh ... Appellant Versus Ujagar Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)…Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. S.S. Panag, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 3.

None for respondents No.2, 4 to 6.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant–plaintiff No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1998 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court, whereby the appeal of the appellant–plaintiff No.1 was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated

30.04.1996 rendered by the learned trial Court was affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their respective status before the learned trial court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Bikkar Singh and Mohinder Singh sons of Bhajan Singh had instituted the present suit seeking declaration of ownership in respect of land measuring 16 kanals, situated in Village Jonewal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The suit land forms part of a larger chunk measuring 40 kanals 15 marlas jointly owned by Ajaib Singh son of Lal Singh to the extent of half share and Pritam Singh, Bachittar Singh, Bikkar Singh, Kamikker (Kamikar) Singh, and Mohinder Singh, all sons of Bhajan Singh to the extent of half share. The relationship inter se parties is reflected in the pedigree table reproduced in the plaint. The dispute centres around two General Power of Attorneys allegedly executed in favour of Nahar Singh (defendant No.4) viz; (i) by Pritam Singh and Kamicker on 30.06.1972, Ex.D6 and (ii) by Bikkar Singh and Mohinder Singh on 30/31.01.1986, Ex.D10. Acting upon aforesaid General Power of Attorneys, Nahar Singh allegedly executed two sale deeds in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 vide sale deed dated 29.01.1986 transferring 8 kanals land (1/5^th share) and sale deed dated 17.02.1986 transferring a further 8 kanals land (1/5^th share).

4. The plaintiffs pleaded that none of them ever executed any such power of attorneys and the same were the result of fraud, impersonation and forgery, rendering the consequent sale deeds illegal, void, without consideration and non est. It was further pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3 had collusively conspired to deprive the plaintiffs of their ancestral land. Plaintiff No.3, Kamickar Singh, being posted in the Army at Nowshera (J&K), could not join as co-plaintiff and was, therefore, impleaded as pro forma defendant with an intention to be transposed later.

5. Upon notice, defendants filed a joint written statement raising preliminary objections of maintainability, estoppel, absence of cause of action limitation etc., besides denying all allegations of fraud and maintaining that all power of attorneys and sale deeds were validly executed.

6. Replication was filed reiterating the averments of the plaint.

7. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed total nine issues including relief.

8. To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined PW-1 Arjan Singh, Inspector, 14 Battalion CRPF, who produced leave records to show that plaintiff Bikkar Singh was on leave from 05.12.1985 to 02.02.1986 and was allegedly travelling on 30/31.01.1986; PW-2 Shiv Singh (Head Constable), who supported version of PW-1 regarding sanctioned days of leave and the period of journey; PW-3 Bikkar Singh (Plaintiff), who categorically denied execution of any power of attorney and claimed that he was travelling to Arunachal Pradesh on the relevant dates; PW-4 Kamikar Singh, who supported the plea of fraud and PW-5 Ajaib Singh, an attesting witness, who claimed that his thumb impression had been taken by Nahar Singh on false pretext. The plaintiffs closed their ev