HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute except in due course of law and further restrained from alienating the suit property to any other person.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for specific performance on 31.1.2000 of an agreement of sale dated 4.10.1996. It was alleged that one Bawa Singh was appointed by defendant No. 1 as an attorney through registered General Power of Attorney dated 31.1.1990. Bawa Singh was authorized to sell the property in dispute and was given all rights to pay instalments to the Punjab Urban Development Authority. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed within four months from the date of agreement. Bawa Singh, attorney of defendant No. 1 had received another sum of Rs. 1.00 lac on 6.12.1996. Another sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- was also received by him on 27.12.1996. On receipt of the said amount, the possession was delivered to the plaintiff on 27.12.1996. The balance sale consideration was Rs. 20,000/-, which was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. It is pointed out by the plaintiff that after the possession was delivered, he has got installed the electric connection and also got his ration card prepared at the given address and that he has deposited the monthly instalments with the Punjab Urban Development Authority. Bawa Singh, the power of attorney of defendant No. 1 died and his legal heirs were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The said defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. However, defendant No. 1 denied the execution of the agreement dated 4.10.1996 in favour of the plaintiff by Bawa Singh and that Bawa Singh was not having any right to execute the agreement. The suit was alleged to be time barred as well. It was also stated that defendant No. 1 has not received any consideration either directly or indirectly and the agreement is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and without any consideration and that Bawa Singh was a close relative of a dreaded terrorist, namely, Professor Dhaliwal and he was a close associate of other leaders of terrorist organisations. Defendant No. 1 was forced to execute a power of attorney. His signatures were obtained on a blank paper during 1980-90, when the terrorism was at its peak. Later on the power of attorney was cancelled in the year 1998. It was also averred that the plaintiff along with defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have forcibly locked the premises and they have no other status except that of trespassers.
(3.) AFTER considering the stand of the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application seeking ad interim injunction against the defendants but permitted defendant No. 1 to sell the property provided he takes prior permission of the Court after making application to bring on record the proposed vendees in order to bind them specifically to the decree that may be passed. The Court found that admission of the defendant that plaintiff is in possession as a trespasser does not entitle the plaintiff to claim relief of ad interim injunction nor the admission of signatures on the deed of general power of attorney will confer any right. Still further, there is no recital in the agreement of sale dated 4.10.1996 regarding delivery of possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, the subsequent endorsement dated 27.12.1996 i.e. Bawa Singh delivered possession to the plaintiff is without any iota of proof to prima facie establish the delivery of possession. With the said findings, the application was dismissed.;