High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
G.K.Murthy v. K.Padmakshi & Anr - RSA-832-2006  RD-P&H 1072 (22 February 2006)
DATE OF DECISION:February 28,2006
K.Padmakshi and another
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sandeep Chabra, Advocate for the caveator.
Defendant No.2 is appellant before this Court. He has concurrently lost before the two Courts below.
A suit for declaration and for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff Smt.K.Padmakshi who was the wife of defendant No.2 G.K.Murthy. Defendant No.1 V.Jayarama is the nephew of defendant No.2. The plaintiff claimed that she alongwith defendant No.2 was joint owner in possession of the house in question having purchased the same through a sale deed dated May 5,1993. The relations between the parties were good. General Power of Attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2. However, later on when defendant No.2 started mal-treating the plaintiff, then she got the aforesaid General Power of Attorney cancelled on July 10,1995. Later on, she came to know that two decrees dated April 6,1996 and June 3,1996 had been manipulated by the defendants and defendant No.2 also proclaimed that the plaintiff stood divorced through decree of divorce dated November 29,1995. In the present suit, the plaintiff challenged two decrees dated April 6, 1996 and June 3, 1996 as being based upon fraud and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.
The defendants contested the suit. Relationship between the parties was not denied. However, it was maintained that house in question was purchased through sale deed dated May 5, 1993 but the entire amount had been spent by defendant No.2 and the plaintiff had not contributed any amount towards the sale proceeds. Defendant No.2 further maintained that the General Power of Attorney had not been cancelled at any point of time.
Both the Courts below found it is a fact that the General Power of Attorney was cancelled on July 10,1995. In these circumstances, the decree dated April 6,1996 shown to have been suffered in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 acting as attorney of the plaintiff was illegal, bad, without any authority and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Consequently, the decree dated June 3, 1996 was also held to be bad which was with regard to the share of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, both the Courts below have rejected the pleas of the defendants. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court. An appeal filed by defendant No.2 failed before the learned First Appellate Court.
Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 28, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.