##PAGE1##

1

RSA-611-2020(O&M)

[123] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-611-2020 (O&M)

Date of decision 22.12.2025

Hakam Singh and others …Appellants

versus

Hazura Singh ….Respondent

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and

Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate

for the respondent.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

[1] Defendants are in appeal, aggrieved of judgment and decree

passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking

decree of declaration to the effect that the gift deed dated 20.03.2012

executed by defendant No.1 acting as attorney of plaintiff in favour of

defendant Nos.2 & 3 with respect to land measuring 01 kanal 10 marlas is

illegal stands decreed and the plaintiff has been held entitled to possession of

land which is the subject-matter of the dispute.

[2] Plaintiff filed a suit, claiming that he originally belongs to

Village Rupo Majra, District Ambala and is currently residing at Mumbai.

Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are brothers. Out of 06 brothers, defendant

No.1 is residing and settled at the native village. Plaintiff having full faith in

his brother-Hakam Singh executed power of attorney in the joint name of his

younger brothers. Hakam Singh and Vikram Singh in May, 1996 to manage

RAJNEESH SHARMA

2026.01.19 11:20

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

RSA-611-2020(O&M)

the property including his share in the joint properties held by him along

with his brothers. The parties enjoyed cordial relations till 2009. The

brothers fell apart after defendant No.1 exercised his undue influence over

father-Ram Kishan to get Will executed in his favour, in which, the plaintiff

was ignored. After plaintiff protested, father cancelled the Will executed in

the year 2009 and executed another Will in the year 2010, whereby all the 06

sons got equal shares.

[3] Plaintiff claims that owing to the said dispute, he executed a

fresh power of attorney in favour of his cousin-Hazara Singh son of Chuni

Lal in January, 2010 to manage his properties, which was in supersession of

the earlier power of attorney executed by him in favour of his real brothers.

He submits that there is a factum of execution of fresh power of attorney in

favour of Hakam Singh which was brought to the knowledge of defendant

No.1 by the plaintiff and his attorney.

[4] Defendant No.1 filed two civil suits against the plaintiff and

other brothers, claiming possession over all the properties situated in

Villages Rupo Majra and Sarangpur. In September, 2011, plaintiff filed civil

suit seeking declaration against defendant No.1 and other brothers and also

by way of separate applications filed before the Revenue Authorities sought

partition of the land. Plaintiff claims that the parties being in thick of lis

were not having cordial relations and thus there was no reason for him to

execute gift deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3, who are sons of

defendant No.1. It is only few days prior to the institution of suit that he

came to know that defendant No.1 got share of the plaintiff in the property

mutated in favour of his sons, i.e. defendant Nos.2 & 3, on the strength of

RAJNEESH SHARMA

2026.01.19 11:20

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

RSA-611-2020(O&M)

gift deed dated 20.03.2012 executed by him acting as attorney of the

plaintiff. The plaintiff thus claims that the gift deed is illegal, null and void

and is bad, which is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.

[5] Suit was contested by defendant No.1 who relied upon general

power of attorney executed by plaintiff dated 23.05.1996 in his favour.

Defendant No.1 claimed that Special Power of Attorney executed by the

plaintiff in January, 2010 in favour of Hazara Singh is not a valid document

as plaintiff was not competent to execute the same. He submits that GPA in

his favour was never cancelled by the plaintiff. He was never intimated of

any cancellation. After plaintiff executed GPA in favour of defendant N