128

2023:PHHC:094286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-1857-2023(O&M)

Date of Decision: July 25, 2023

SATNAM SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR

........ Appellant

Versus

JASWANT SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS MOHINDER

KAUR, PREET MOHINDER SINGH, BIRINDER SINGH AND

HARINDER LIDDER AND ORS.

........ Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

1.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the

judgments and decrees dated 11.01.2018 and 17.05.2022 passed by

the Courts below whereby a suit for declaration as well as permanent

injunction filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff stands decreed.

2.

In the present case, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for

declaration claiming ownership over the suit property, besides

challenging the sale deed dated 11.08.2011 qua the same, executed by

defendant No.5 in favour of defendant Nos. 1-4 being a forged and

fabricated document while stating that the respondent-plaintiff never

executed any power of attorney dated 22.02.2000 qua the same as

alleged by defendant No.5, in his favour.

3.

In response, suit was contested on behalf of defendant

Nos.2-4 claiming ownership on the basis of sale deed dated 11.08.2011

TEJWINDER SINGH

2023.08.01 17:42

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:094286

RSA-1857-2023(O&M)

-2-

based on power of attorney dated 22.02.2000. The trial Court vide its

judgment and decree dated 11.01.2018 decreed the suit filed by

respondent-plaintiff while holding the power of attorney dated

22.02.2000 to be a forged and fabricated document and based

thereupon declaring the sale deed dated 11.08.2011 to be illegal, null

and void.

4.

Aggrieved thereof, the First Appeal was filed which also

came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2022

passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana.

5.

Impugning the aforementioned judgments, learned counsel

for the appellant submits that the sale deed dated 11.08.2011 as well as

the power of attorney dated 22.02.2000 were both registered

documents carrying presumption of truth and thus could not have been

held to be illegal. Learned counsel further submits that the suit filed by

respondent-plaintiff was not even maintainable on account of non-

compliance of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC as the Court never ordered for

appointment of any guardian qua the respondent who was stated to be

in coma. Order 32 Rule 15 CPC is reproduced hereunder:-

“This provision states that all these rules from

1 to 14, except rule 2A, provided specifically for minors, are

also applicable to persons of unsound mind, so adjudged by

the court. And it is also applicable in this case. They were not

adjudged as of unsound mind, but after enquiry done by the

court, it appears that they are suffering from mental infirmity

due to which they were unable to protect their interests.”

6.

In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for

the appellant places reliance upon judgments passed by the Hon’ble

TEJWINDER SINGH

2023.08.01 17:42

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:094286

RSA-1857-2023(O&M)

-3-

Supreme Court in case of “Raj Kumar Vs. Rameshchand 1999(2)

RCR (Rent) 438” and “Kasturi Bai and Ors. Vs. Anguri Chaudhary,

2003(1) RCR (Civil) 765”

7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the

submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

8.

In the present case, from the statement of PW2, namely,

Jaswant Rai, from the Office of Sub-Registrar Phillaur and PW4,

namely, Jaswant Singh, from the Office of Sub-Registrar Ludhiana

West, it has been suffi