Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:140390

RSA-729-2020 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

131

RSA-729-2020 (O&M)

Decided on : 03.11.2023

Bishan Kaur (deceased)

through Her LR Amarjit Kaur

. . . Appellant(s)

Versus

Gurvinder Kaur and others

. . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate

for the appellant(s).

****

SANJAY VASHISTH

, J. (Oral)

CM-2270-C-2020

For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed.

Consequently, the delay of 154 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is

hereby condoned.

Civil Miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

RSA-729-2020 (O&M)

1.

Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed by the

plaintiff – Bishan Kaur (deceased) through her LR Amarjit Kaur (appellant

herein) against the concurrent findings of dismissal of suit filed by her.

2.

Plaintiff filed a suit, seeking a decree of declaration that

defendant No.3 - Balvir Singh (respondent No.3 herein) has sold out the land

measuring 10K-8M (detailed in paragraph No.2 of the trial Court judgment),

on the basis of a forged General Power of Attorney (GPA), dated

30.10.2007, to defendants No.1 & 2 (respondents No.1 & 2 herein).

Further, challenge is made to the impugned sale-deed bearing

Vasika No. 3800 dated 16.11.2007, and mutation based thereon, which is a

JAWALA RAM

2023.11.08 14:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:140390

RSA-729-2020 (O&M)

- 2 -

consequential relief, based upon the primary relief of getting GPA dated

30.10.2007, declared as illegal.

3.

Based upon the pleadings of the parties, following seven issues

were framed by learned Trial Court vide its order dated 02.08.2014:-

“1.

Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to the suit for declaration as

prayed for? OPP

2.

Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to the suit for permanent

injunction as prayed for? OPP

3.

Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in its

present form? OPD

4.

Whether the plaintiffs has concealed the material and patent

facts from the court? OPD

5.

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct

to file the present suit? OPD

6.

Whether the plaintiffs has no locus standi to file the present

suit? OPD

7.

Relief.”

4.

Both the Courts below reached to the conclusion that plaintiff –

Bishan Kaur is mother of defendant No.3 – Balvir Singh, against whom the

allegations of impersonation and forgery were levelled by her. Prime

allegation is that defendant No.3 – Balvir Singh, had forged GPA dated

30.10.2007 by making someone else to impersonate as Bishan Kaur, though,

she herself never appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Kanshipur (U.K.).

Thus, has not affixed her thumb impression upon it.

The Ld. Courts below further reached to the conclusion that

plaintiff has taken a plea of fraud by way of impersonation, but in the

pleadings of the suit, plaintiff did not even disclose her relationship with

defendant No.3 – Balvir Singh, who in fact, is her real son.

Ld. Courts below concluded that consciously, plaintiff has

concealed even the name of her husband ‘Lachman Singh’, by projecting

JAWALA RAM

2023.11.08 14:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:140390

RSA-729-2020 (O&M)

- 3 -

herself as daughter of ‘Nihal Singh s/o Bahadur Singh’. Ld. Courts below

also concluded that from the wedlock of Bishan Kaur (plaintiff) and said

Lachman Singh, two more sons namely; Surjit Singh and Satnam Singh, and

two daughters namely; Kartar Kaur and Amarjit Kaur, were born. Even,

these details were not brought on record by the plaintiff. Even, after filing of

the suit on 20.08.2009, plaintiff survived for about two years and died on

23.04.2011, but to authenticate her pleadings, she never appeared before the

Civil Court.

Both the Ld. Courts below, also concluded that once plea of

fraud is taken by the party, onus is