RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of nine appeals i.e RSA No. 1241 of 2013 and RSA No. 578 to 585 of 2011, as in all these appeals, common questions of law on identical facts have been raised on behalf of the plaintiff -appellants, who are aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing their suit as well as the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court which has upheld the findings of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid judgments and decrees. However for convenience sake, facts are being taken from RSA No. 1241 of 2013. The appellants filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint comprising in plot no. 24 in the area of Basti Sheikh near Dussehra Ground, opposite Ghas Mandi, Jalandhar on the basis of a sale deed dated 12.7.1996 registered on 26.7.1996 along with consequential relief of possession for the suit land, after removal of the malba as described and detailed and shown in the site plan attached with the plaint.
(2.) IT was further averred that plaintiffs are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land for a valuable consideration vide aforesaid sale deed whereas the defendant on the basis of forged and fabricated documents occupied the property in dispute without their consent and thus is a trespasser and has no right to remain in the property in dispute. It was further averred that plaintiffs reported the matter to the police but to no effect. They also requested the defendant to hand over the possession of the property in dispute but he refused to do so. The land in dispute was agricultural land and the defendant raised illegal construction thereon during the pendency of the suit despite objections raised by them and thus they were entitled to the possession after removal of the malba on the said plot. Since the defendant did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs, necessity arose to file the instant suit. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit further alleging that the sale deed in question is forged and fabricated document which was executed by Dilbagh Rai through his attorney Ram Lal Gupta. It was further submitted that Dilbagh Rai was not known to the world since long and has not executed any power of Attorney as alleged and even if there was any Power of Attorney, the same is forged and fabricated document and the sale deed was wrongly executed by playing fraud. It was further averred that there was no allotment in favour of Dilbagh Rai and the auction/allotment if any was cancelled vide order dated 5.1.1961 by this Court. Thereafter again the matter went up to the High Court and the sale certificate which was fraudulently obtained by Dilbagh Rai was cancelled vide order dated 4.3.1977. According to the defendant, he had purchased the plot in question from one Janga Singh and constructed a pucca house over there. Dilbagh Rai was not entitled to any land as allotment in which he allegedly got the land has already been cancelled and even the sale certificate has been cancelled by the competent authority and, therefore, Dilbagh Rai was not competent to execute the Power of Attorney regarding the land in dispute. It was further submitted that Dilbagh Rai has expired and thus if the principal was not alive, the Power of Attorney is also not alive and therefore the sale deed or any document executed by the Attorney or such Power of Attorney is a null and void transaction. It was further stated that defendant was in possession of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs have no right to call him as trespasser. All other averments made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed. Plaintiffs filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant and reiterating those of the plaint. It was submitted that earlier in the year 1961 all the auctions were cancelled and the Managing Officer was directed to consider for transfer of land up to the alleged allotment of the lease deed/sub lease. Earlier Janga Singh was offered 8 kanals and 1 marla of land which was held to be void. Later on the DRO -cum - Managing Officer in his proposal proposed amendment of Khasra No. 318, 2616/313 and 322 min total land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas at the enhanced rate eligibility limit of Rs.14,250/ - and with the aforesaid order earlier allotment of khasra no. 312 and 318 was treated as cancelled. Again vide order dated 11.8.1964 Janga Singh was offered land measuring 10 kanals 2 marlas at the market price ranging from Rs.1000 to Rs.1500/ - per kanal comprising in khasra no. 319 (5 -17), 312 (1 -16), 3328/311 (1 -2), 3327/311 (0 -11), 3326/311 (0 -7), 305 min (0 -4), 310 min (0 -1), 321 min (0 -1), 322 (0 -3) and thus the claim was specified up to the value of Rs.14,415/ - and this offer was confirmed. However, Janga Singh failed to deposit the amount and his allotment stood cancelled, whereas the auction in favour of Dilbagh Rai stood confirmed at all levels, the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs was legal and valid document executed by Dilbagh Rai through his Attorney Ram Lal Gupta. Hence the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief claimed by them. It was specifically stated in the replication that Dilbagh Rai was alive.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property after removing the Malba? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the sale deed dated 12.07.1996 is collusive document without consideration ?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and juridiction? OPD 9. Relief. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. During the pendency of the case, plaintiff Ashok Kumar Syal died on 3.10.2006, accordingly his LRs were ordered to be impleaded in his place. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence, the trial Court decided issue no.1 against the plaintiffs. Issues no. 2 was decided in favour of the defendant, whereas issue no.3 was decided against the defendant. Issue no. 4 was decided against the plaintiffs. Issue no. 5 & 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Whereas issue no. 7 was disposed of being unpressed. Issue no. 8 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant resultantly the suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.;