Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur accepting the appeal of the respondents and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1989 passed by the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs -respondents.
(2.) THE plaintiffs -respondents filed suit for possession of land measuring 56 kanals 07 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Wadala Granthian, Sub Tehsil Qadian, District Gurdaspur, detailed in the head note of the plaint. It is averred that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Harman Singh and the plaintiffs and Harnam Singh constituted a joint Hindu family. Harnam Singh died on 21.1.1985. Baljit Singh defendant -appellant alleged that Harnam Singh had appointed Satwant Kaur, his wife as his attorney and on the strength of said power of attorney, Satwant Kaur sold 17 kanals 11 marlas of land bearing Khasra Nos. 2/2(4 -8), 3(5 -3) and 7(8 -0) of Rectangle No. 38 vide sale deed dated 10.7.1984 and for the remaining land, he (Baljit Singh) executed a lease deed for 30 years. Harnam Singh was incompetent to alienate the suit land without consideration, legal necessity and benefit of the estate as it was ancestral coparcenary property. Defendant No. 1, Baljit Singh -appellant filed the written statement controverting the allegations that the plaintiffs and Harnam Singh formed joint Hindu family or that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property. Harnam Singh appointed Satwant Kaur, his wife as general attorney vide registered deed dated 1.6.1984. Through defendant No. 2, he purchased 17 kanals 11 marlas of land vide Registered Sale deed dated 10.7.1984 for a sale consideration of Rs. 36, 000/ -. The remaining land measuring 38 kanals 16 marlas was obtained by him on lease, vide registered lease deed dated 26.10.1984 at a yearly rent of Rs. 5000/ -. Harnam Singh being the absolute owner of the suit land was fully competent to alienate the same. Plaintiffs were governed by customary law and not by the Hindu law.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 filed her separate written statement admitting that Harnam Singh had appointed her as attorney. Defendant No. 1 asked her to take the suit land on lease for one year. He produced her before the Wasika Nawis (Deed Writer) and got her thumb impression saying that it was a contract of lease for one year, otherwise, she was not explained the nature of the document or its import. The remaining averments of the plaint were admitted.;