High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Labh Singh v. Swaran Singh & Anr - RSA-473-2006  RD-P&H 932 (17 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 473 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 9, 2006
Swaran Singh and another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. K.S. Baidwan, 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 concurrently lost before both the Courts below have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. He filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction claiming that the sale deed dated July 1, 1996 is a result of fraud, null and void qua the rights of the plaintiff.
It was claimed by him that he alongwith his brother Amrik Singh had purchased the suit land which was adjacent to the land of Raghubir Singh, defendant No.2.
Raghubir Singh is the father of defendant No.1 and husband of sister of the plaintiff. It was further claimed that defendants No.1 and 2 while working as Ahlmad with Civil Courts at Rajpura, and therefore, had got fabricated Special R.S.A. No. 473 of 2006 (O&M) 
Power of attorney shown to have been executed by plaintiff as well as Amrik Singh, his brother on September 20.1989. On the basis of the said power of attorney a sale deed dated July 1, 1996 was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, and therefore, the said sale deed was claimed to be sham, illegal and not binding.
The defendants contested the suit through their separate written statements. Similar stands were taken by them. They asserted that special power of Attorney had been executed by plaintiff and Amrik Singh willingly and validly.
On the basis of the authority given by the aforesaid power of attorney, the sale deed dated July 1, 1996 was executed.
The learned trial Court upheld the execution of the special power of attorney by the plaintiff and Amrik Singh in favour of defendant No.2. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, it was held that the sale deed dated July 1, 1996 was also legal and valid. The claim made by the plaintiff that he was not even at station on September 30, 1989 was rejected by the learned trial Court holding that no evidence in this regard was lead by the plaintiff. However, the learned trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,000/- along with interest holding that plaintiff had not received the amount of consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. Similar findings were recorded by the learned first Appellate Court as well.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
R.S.A. No. 473 of 2006 (O&M) 
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 9, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.