Decided on July 18,2007



J.M.MALIK, J. - (1.) The application moved by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was dismissed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 11th January, 2007. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of relinquishment deed, general power of attorney, special power of attorney and for permanent injunction. The facts emanating from the plaint and application are these. Smt.Bohti was the owner of 1/3rd share in respect of land measuring 54 bigas 15 biswas situated at Village Ibrahimpur, Delhi, which she had inherited from her forefather. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, plaintiff/appellant is an adopted son of Smt.Bhoti. After her death, he became the sole owner of the suit land. The suit land was mutated in his favour after a prolonged litigation by the order of the Financial Commissioner.
(2.) The appellant due to exigency of his service used to remain out of station. He executed general power of attorney and special power of attorney dated 30th September, 2000, in favour of Sudhir Kumar /respondent No.1, at the instance of Surinder Kumar, Sudhir Kumar's father, on the understanding that when the appellant was to be out of station, any buyer intending to purchase the said land would approach, the deal might be materialised by the Sudhir Kumar/ respondent No.1, on behalf of the appellant and the sale consideration amount would be reimbursed to the appellant on his arrival. In the month of February, 2005, the appellant came to know that respondent No.1 wanted to sell some part of the suit land on the basis of some false documents, which were never executed by the appellant. On enquiry the appellant came to know that respondent No.1 had executed an alleged relinquishment deed with consideration in favour of his father, Surinder Kumar on 15th March, 2001, without the permission of the appellant. No such power was given to the respondent No.1 by the appellant to execute any relinquishment deed in favour of any person. Again, when the relinquishment deed was executed, at that time, the father of respondent No.1, Surinder Kumar, was in coma and totally bed-ridden. The relinquishment deed was forged. The appellant made inquiry from respondent No.1, who on the contrary threatened him with dire consequences. The property in question was also got mutated in the name of Surinder Kumar.
(3.) It is further alleged that defendants in connivance and collusion with their father, Surinder Kumar had got transferred the said land in their favour without any consideration to appellant/plaintiff. However, the consideration amount has been allegedly shown as Rs. 3 lakhs in the said Relinquishment Deed, whereas the value of the said land was much more than Rs. 3 lakhs as per Government's own rates. The said relinquishment deed was executed by respondent No.1 without any knowledge or permission of the appellant and is forged one. Legal notice was sent but it did not ring the bell. Consequently, in the instant application it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, creating third party interest or parting with possession of the suit property till the pendency of this case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.