119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.2261 of 2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14^th December, 2022

Ram Sarup

… Appellant

Versus

Ramesh Kumar & others

… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

Suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant was

dismissed with costs by the learned trial Court vide judgment and

decree dated 26.09.2018 and which findings were affirmed by the

learned lower appellate Court by way of judgment and decree dated

15.07.2022. The plaintiff is now before this Court challenging the

concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.

The parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their

original position in the suit.

The pleaded case of the plaintiff may be noticed as thus:

The plaintiff and defendant No.1, being brothers, purchased

plot measuring 400 sq. yards i.e. to the extent of 43/2613 shares out of

the total land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla 01 Sarsai land bearing Rect.

No.254 Killa No.26 min comprised in Khewat No.494 Khatoni No.629,

RATTAN PAL SINGH

2022.12.22 15:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

RSA No.2261 of 2022 (O&M)

2

in equal shares vide sale deed No.4943 dated 20.03.1990 for a valuable

consideration. The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner in

possession of the suit property (as detailed in para No.1 of the judgment

of the trial Court) and averred that defendant No.1 had no right, title or

concern with the suit property. It was also averred that the plaintiff

came to know that defendant No.1 by playing a fraud and by

misrepresentation, had got one General Power of Attorney (hereinafter

referred to as, ‘GPA’) No.476 dated 20.10.1992 registered purportedly

from the plaintiff, in his favour qua the suit property which thus, was

illegal and void, and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Still

further, it was averred that as soon as the plaintiff learned about the

aforesaid fake, forged and fabricated GPA, he got it cancelled vide duly

registered cancellation GPA No.299 dated 03.03.1997 before the Sub

Registrar, Jind. Subsequently, defendant No.2 got mutation bearing

No.10956 dated 30.04.2013 sanctioned qua the suit property, in his

favour, without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, since the

GPA stood cancelled on 03.03.1997 and the defendants were fully

aware about the same, defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest in

the suit property. It was still further averred by the plaintiff that in the

given facts and circumstances, the sale deed had been registered in

contravention to the directions of the Financial Commissioner-cum-

Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, vide memo No.1258-STR-2-

2006/3994 dated 28.04.2006. The plaintiff also reserved his right to file

RATTAN PAL SINGH

2022.12.22 15:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

RSA No.2261 of 2022 (O&M)

3

a criminal complaint against the defendants for committing fraud and

cheating by fabricating the aforesaid GPA. Having been left with no

other efficacious remedy, the suit in question was instituted by the

plaintiff.

Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written

statement wherein, besides taking preliminary objections, it was

submitted on merits that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had entered

into a family settlement in the year 1992 in the presence of respectables

and family members whereby the ancestral house (Haveli) was given to

the plaintiff and half share of the plot measuring 400 square yards i.e.

the suit property was given to the defendant. After one month of the

said family settlement, the plaintiff got the GPA in question registered

in favour of defendant No.1 on 20.12.1992, which was later on

fraudulently cancelled by the plaintiff in the year 1997 without

defendant No.1 being pu