High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Darshan Kaur v. Bakshi Gurdial Singh & Anr - RSA-683-2006  RD-P&H 944 (20 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 683 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 10, 2006
Darshan Kaur .....Appellant
Bakshi Gurdial Singh and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. G.S. Savra, Advocate
for the appellant.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The plaintiff having lost before the learned first Appellate Court has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.
A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from dispossessing her from the residential house shown as ABCD. The plaintiff claimed that she was in possession of the suit property and the defendants were trying to forcibly dispossess her.
The defendants who are husband and wife, contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts from the Court. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff and her husband Bakhshish Singh were in the need of money and had offered to sell their plot measuring 11 marls along with the house for a consideration of Rs.56,000/- on September 20,1994. At that time, the husband of the plaintiff had represented that he was the exclusive owner of the entire house along with plot. Bakhshish Singh executed a General Power of R.S.A. No. 683 of 2005 (O&M) 
Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 empowering her to execute the sale deed for the house along with plot to any person she liked. Thereafter, Bakhshish Singh received the entire amount of consideration on September 20, 1994. The aforesaid power of attorney was irrevocable, and therefore, neither the plaintiff nor her husband Bakhshish Singh were left with any property.
The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court.
The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and accepted the pleas raised by the defendants. It was held that the plaintiff was not even in possession of the suit property. It was also held that because of the fact that the entire sale consideration had been received by the husband of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not be heard to make any grievance. The General Power of Attorney set up by the defendants was also accepted.
In view of the aforesaid findings, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 10, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.