- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who is aggrieved against the dismissal of her suit for declaration and the relief of possession and against the partial modification by the lower appellate Court whereby she has been held entitled to the relief of Rs. 70,000/- with 6% interest from the date of institution of the suit from defendant No.1.
(2.) The suit was filed on the ground that the defendants were the sons of the plaintiff's real brother, Rampat and that in the year 1988, they had played a fraud with her by getting blank papers thumb marked on the ground that her land was being acquired for the purpose of construction of JNL canal. Defendant No.1 had misused the thumb mark and got a general power of attorney in his favour on 08.09.1988 and thereafter, executed sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 & 3 who are his real brothers for Rs. 70,000/- on 09.09.1988. Accordingly, it was contended that the said general power of attorney and sale deed was also not binding upon the plaintiff.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants and it was pleaded that she had sold her share and no compensation amount was due in the year 1988 in respect of the land acquired for the JLN canal and the amount of Rs. 70,000/- had been paid to the plaintiff in the presence of Jai Narain, ExMember Panch, Ram Kishan, Panch and Prem Sukh, Lambardar. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 dated 08.09.1988 was procured by defendant No.1 by playing fraud upon the plaintiff as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff, to what effect is the sale deed dated 09.09.1988 executed by defendant No.1 as General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2 and 3? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not filed within time? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Virender, petition writer and joint Sub-Registrar, Rewari as alleged in P.O.No.37? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the suit is Benami and collusive and has been filed at the instance of Kusumlata and Nariani widow of Daya Nand, if so, to what effect? OPD 8. Relief. ;