High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Bhag Singh v. Hardial Singh & Ors - RSA-3209-2004  RD-P&H 1271 (28 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.3209 of 2004
Date of Decision : February 23, 2006.
Bhag Singh .... Appellant
Hardial Singh & others .... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate
for respondents no.1, 2 and 3.
JUDGMENT (Oral) :
The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below and has approached this court through the present regular second appeal.
He filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction challenging two sale deeds dated January 23, 1987 and January 13, 1987, whereby defendant no.4 Jagroop Singh had sold the suit land in favour of defendants no.1 to 3.
The facts which emerge from the record show that Bhag Singh was undergoing imprisonment. At that point of time, he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no.4 Jagroop Singh in the year
1975. On the strength of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney, Jagroop Singh executed the aforesaid two sale deeds in favour of defendants no.1 to 3.
The plaintiff claimed that he had been released from jail in the year 1980 and thereafter, there was no occasion for Jagroop Singh to have acted as attorney of the plaintiff and to execute the sale deed in question.
R.S.A.No.3209 of 2004 : 2 :
The plaintiff further claimed that the aforesaid General Power of Attorney had been destroyed and therefore, Jagroop Singh had ceased to be having any authority to deal with the property of plaintiff.
Both the courts below have concurrently held that Jagroop Singh was appointed as general attorney of the plaintiff in the year 1975 and at no point of time, the said General Power of Attorney was revoked or cancelled.
In these circumstances, the sale deeds executed by Jagroop Singh in favour of defendants no.1 to 3 were held to be with authority and for consideration and as such, legal and valid.
Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal also failed before the learned first appellate court.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the 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 23, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.