VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff-appellants by way of this Regular Second Appeal have challenged the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction has been ordered to be dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff Jaswinder Singh (since deceased through his LRs.) filed a suit claiming that he was owner of plot No. 223 of Scheme No. 3 of Improvement Trust, Phagwara, having purchased the same in open auction and the transfer of the said plot by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1, was illegal, unlawful, without consideration and was a sham transaction and without the jurisdiction of defendant No. 3 and was a result of collusion between defendant Nos. 2 and 3 inter se. It was claimed that the said transfer did not affect the proprietary rights of the plaintiff. It was further claimed that compromise dated 25.6.1999 effected by the attorney of the plaintiff namely Jit Kaur was a result of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence practised on her and compromise entered without the permission of the plaintiff. Injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from executing the sale deed, conveyance deed in respect of the said plot in favour of defendant No. 1 or in favour of any other person. The possession was also sought by way of mandatory injunction.
(3.) THE plaintiff also claimed that plot No. 223 was purchased in the year 1980 and the sale consideration was paid in instalments by way of separate receipts and the last instalment was not accepted on account of litigation with owners whose land was acquired under the scheme. The case of the plaintiff was that he had appointed defendant No. 2 as his Attorney by way of power of attorney dated 12th March, 1993 which was returned by defendant No. 2 as the same was not accepted by defendant No. 3. A power of attorney was again sent on 3rd November, 1993 along with last instalment with an intention to get the requisite formalities done in favour of the plaintiff. It was also claimed that the plaintiff never intended that defendant No. 2 should alienate the plot to any one. According to the plaintiff, he was informed that the possession of the said plot would be handed over to him soon.;