Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bhag Singh v. Hardial Singh & Ors - RSA-3209-2004 [2006] 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.


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as general attorney of the plaintiff in the year 1975 and at no point of time, the said General Power of Attorney was revoked or cancelled.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 )

monika JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.