High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Mr.Premjit Kalia v. Sucha Singh & another - RSA-3646-2003  RD-P&H 680 (9 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No. 3646 of 2003
Date of Decision : January 23, 2006.
Mr.Premjit Kalia .... Appellant
Sucha Singh & another .... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate
for the appellant.
for the respondents.
The defendant having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has approached this court through the present appeal.
A suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff has been decreed by the trial court and appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the first appellate court.
It was claimed by the plaintiff that he was owner in possession and never executed any General Power of Attorney dated November 09, 1994 in favour of defendant no.2 and that the sale deed executed by defendant no.2 on November 15, 1994 in favour of defendant no.1 was illegal and not binding upon him.
Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff had never executed General Power of Attorney voluntarily and that he was confined to police custody and he was pressurised by police on a complaint made by his daughter-in-law (defendant no.1). In these circumstances, if the General Power of Attorney was not voluntarily executed by him, then obviously, the sale deed dated November 15, 1994 could not be treated to be binding upon his rights.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
R.S.A.No. 3646 of 2003 : 2 :
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
January 23, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.