2023:PHHC:128023

RSA-6127-2015(O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-6127-2015(O&M)

Reserved on:- 11.08.2023

Pronounced on:- 03.10.2023

Kanta Devi

....Appellant

Versus

Charan Singh and Anr.

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI

Present:-

Mr. A.S.Khinda, Advocate for the appellant.

*****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1.

The appellant-Kanta Devi has filed regular second appeal

against impugned judgment and decree dated 06.05.2015 vide which

appeal preferred against judgment and decree dated 04.09.2013 dismissing

the suit of the plaintiff passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Phagwara was dismissed.

2.

As per the facts of the case, Kanta Devi-appellant/plaintiff

had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

alienating or transferring property No.404 situated in Guru Hargobind

Nagar, Phagwara with the boundaries as detailed therein and further

restraining the defendants from raising any sort of construction over this

property illegally and forcibly along with the relief of mandatory

injunction directing the defendants to restore the said property in its

original residential house after demolishing the superstructure of shops

raised two months ago and to remove the Malba therefrom and also suit

for possession of the house in dispute.

Sunil Devi

2023.10.04 09:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:128023

RSA-6127-2015(O&M)

-2-

Initially the suit was filed against Charan Singh-defendant

No.1 and Jagjit Singh-defendant No.2 was impleaded subsequently. The

case of the plaintiff was that she is a co-sharer along with her daughters

namely Bhavishya Rekha Rai and Hemlata Rai and son Pankaj Rai.

Originally the property was owned and possessed by her husband Dilbagh

Rai who had already expired and the property was inherited by her along

with her children in equal shares. It was claimed that the defendants have

no right, title or interest in the said property. They were influential

persons and wanted to grab the suit property. They were also extending

threats to alienate the same and further change the nature of the property.

They were also threatening to raise construction illegally and forcibly. In

the absence of plaintiff, the defendant illegally and forcibly demolished the

residential house No.404 about two months ago and raised construction of

shops and changed the nature of property from residential to commercial

property. Then they were further threatening to alienate the same. The

defendants had taken illegal, forcible possession of this property in

February 2007. The defendants were requested to deliver back the vacant

possession of the property but they had refused and ultimately the suit was

filed.

3.

Notice of the suit was given to both the defendants. They had

filed separate written statements by taking the same stand that the suit was

not maintainable in the present form. The plaintiff had concealed material

facts from the Court. She was not co-owner of the property in question.

This property was originally owned by Dilbagh Rai who appointed Brij

Lal Kalra as his General Power of Attorney holder. The registered General

Power of Attorney dated 27.05.1982 is placed on record. Brij Lal Kalra on

the basis of aforesaid General Power of Attorney of Dilbagh Rai sold the

Sunil Devi

2023.10.04 09:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:128023

RSA-6127-2015(O&M)

-3-

suit property bearing No.404 along with other properties bearing No.402

and 403 situated in Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara along with his wife Usha

Kalra, in favour of Surjit Singh, Charan Singh and Jagjit Singh. Regarding

this sale, an agreement to sell dated 26.11.1985 was executed by receiving

a sum of Rs.6 lacs as full and final sale consideration regarding plots

No.402, 403 and 404. Accordingly, the plot No.404 at Guru Hargobind

Nagar, Phagwara was in the ownership an