IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 30.03.2026 Pronounced on : 07.04.2026 TEHAL SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R. ...APPELLANT VERSUS INDERJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Krishan Sharma Bhardwaj, Advocate for for appellant.

Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellant-

plaintiff for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1991 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Ropar, whereby suit filed by him was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 22.04.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby first appeal preferred by appellant-plaintiff against dismissal of his suit was also dismissed.

2. Appellant-plaintiff had filed suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 18.11.1987 executed in respect of land measuring 05 kanals comprised in khasra number 24//13/2/2 situated in village Bela, tehsil and district Ropar, wholly described in plaint, is illegal, null and void, having no effect on his rights. Appellant-plaintiff claimed himself to be owner in possession of suit land and had also sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his ownership and possession. It was claimed that defendant No.2 by misrepresentation and fraud got executed power of attorney in his favour on 03.07.1987. Upon coming to know about fraud, appellant-plaintiff got the same cancelled through registered cancellation deed dated 13.08.1987 and defendant No.2 was duly informed about cancellation through written information under postal certificate dated 15.08.1987. It was asserted that despite cancellation of power of attorney, defendant No.2 without any authority executed the sale deed dated 18.11.1987 in favour of defendant No.1. It was claimed that that sale deed was without consideration as no amount has been paid to appellant-plaintiff. Appellant-plaintiff claimed possession of suit land as owner and sought declaration that sale deed is not binding on his rights.

3. Defendant No.2 had not appeared to contest the suit and suit was contested only by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 by way of her written statement asserted that suit land was owned by her husband Lakhbir Singh @ Lakwinder Singh from whom appellant-plaintiff had purchased the said suit property through a bogus sale deed in which consideration was not passed. Lakbir Singh, husband of defendant No.1, was not living good moral life, had fallen in bad company and was spend-thrift. Defendant No.1 duly challenged the sale deed executed by her husband in favour of appellant- plaintiff upon which appellant-plaintiff had agreed to re-transfer suit land in her favour for price. It was asserted that appellant-plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 on 03.07.1987 and had received whole consideration of Rs.12,500/- on that very day. The agreement was written by professional deed writer and thumb marked by appellant-plaintiff and attested by witnesses after execution of agreement to sell. Defendant No.1 executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 on 03.07.1987 which was duly registered on 09.07.1987. The said power of attorney was never cancelled to the knowledge of defendant No.1 or defendant No.2. It was asserted that defendant No.1 is bona fide purchaser of suit property and that father's name of appellant-plaintiff was wrongly written in sale deed, which was corrected by deed writer. The dismissal of suit was accordingly sought.

4. Following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties:-

i. Whether the sale deed dated 18.11.87 is null, void and illegal and liable to be set aside as alleged? OPP.

ii. Whether the suit is not maintainable in as alleged?

OPD.

iii. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD.

iv. Relief.

5. Facts in pres