T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH RSA-611- Date of dec -2020 (O&M) v. Hazura Sin ra Singh

Plaintiff an tiff and defendant No.1 are brothers rothers. Out of 06 brothers, defenda efendant No.1 is resi is residing and settled at the native vil tive village. Plaintiff having full faith l faith in his brother rother-Hakam Singh executed power o ower of attorney in the joint name of h e of his younger bro ger brothers. Hakam Singh and Vikra Vikram Singh in May, 1996 to manag manage RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 RSA-611-2020(O&M (O&M) the propert roperty including his share in the jo the joint properties held by him alon m along with his b his brothers. The parties enjoyed oyed cordial relations till 2009. Th

9. The brothers fe ers fell apart after defendant No.1 ex o.1 exercised his undue influence ov ce over father-Ram Ram Kishan to get Will executed in ted in his favour, in which, the plainti plaintiff was ignore ignored. After plaintiff protested, fath d, father cancelled the Will executed cuted in the year 20 ear 2009 and executed another Will in ill in the year 2010, whereby all the 0 ll the 06 sons got eq got equal shares. [3] Plaintiff claims that owing to ing to the said dispute, he executed cuted a fresh powe power of attorney in favour of his co his cousin-Hazara Singh son of Chu f Chuni Lal in Janu n January, 2010 to manage his propert roperties, which was in supersession o ssion of the earlier p arlier power of attorney executed by h d by him in favour of his real brother rothers. He submits ubmits that there is a factum of execu execution of fresh power of attorney orney in favour of H r of Hakam Singh which was brough brought to the knowledge of defenda efendant No.1 by the by the plaintiff and his attorney. [4] Defendant No.1 filed two civ wo civil suits against the plaintiff an tiff and other broth brothers, claiming possession ove n over all the properties situated ated in Villages R Rupo Majra and Sarangpur. In Se In September, 2011, plaintiff filed civ led civil suit seeking seeking declaration against defendant ndant No.1 and other brothers and als and also by way of s ay of separate applications filed befor before the Revenue Authorities soug s sought partition of tion of the land. Plaintiff claims tha s that the parties being in thick of k of lis were not h not having cordial relations and thus d thus there was no reason for him r him to execute gif ute gift deed in favour of defendan fendant Nos.2 & 3, who are sons o sons of defendant N dant No.1. It is only few days prio s prior to the institution of suit that h t that he came to kn to know that defendant No.1 got sha ot share of the plaintiff in the proper property mutated in ted in favour of his sons, i.e. defenda efendant Nos.2 & 3, on the strength o ength of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 RSA-611-2020(O&M (O&M) gift deed deed dated 20.03.2012 executed by ed by him acting as attorney of th of the plaintiff. T tiff. The plaintiff thus claims that the hat the gift deed is illegal, null and vo nd void and is bad, s bad, which is not binding upon the ri the rights of the plaintiff. [5] Suit was contested by defenda efendant No.1 who relied upon gener general power of a r of attorney executed by plaintiff intiff dated 23.05.1996 in his favou favour. Defendant ndant No.1 claimed that Special Pow al Power of Attorney executed by th by the plaintiff in tiff in January, 2010 in favour of Haz Hazara Singh is not a valid docume ocument as plaintiff aintiff was not competent to execute th cute the same. He submits that GPA GPA in his favour avour was never cancelled by the plai he plaintiff. He was never intimated o ated of any cancell ancellation. After plaintiff executed G cuted GPA in favour of defendant No nt No.1 on 23.05.19

3.05.1996, the share of the plaintiff w ntiff was purchased by defendants for nts for a consideratio ideration of Rs.50,000/-, which was p was paid by him to the plaintiff in th ff in the month of Ju h of June, 1996 and is in possession o sion over the same since then as owne s owner. Defendant ndant No.1 further claimed that on 2 t on 20.03.2012, he gifted land to h d to his sons on the on the strength of GPA dated 23.05.

23.05.1996 and defendant No.1 furth further claimed that his possession over the s the suit land since June, 1996 ti 996 till

20.03.2012 .2012 remained continuous, open and en and hostile to the knowledge of th e of the plaintiff an tiff and thus, he has acquired owners wnership over the suit land by way o way of adverse pos rse possession. [6] Defendant Nos.2 & 3 filed filed the separate written statement tements, taking a sta a stand similar to the one pleaded by ded by defendant No.1. [7] Suit filed by the plaintiff was was put to trial by the Court of Fir of First Instance, fr nce, framing following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is e the grounds as prayed for is entitled to decree for declaration o for? OPP ion on RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 RSA-611-2020(O&M (O&M) (2) If issue no.1 is proved, w further relief of separate consequential relief of p OPP ed, whether the plaintiff is entitled ate possession by way of partition an of permanent injunction as prayed fo ed to on and d for? (3) Whether the suit of plaint laintiff is not maintainable in its prese resent form? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has action to file the present su f has no locus standi and no cause sent suit? OPD use of (5) Whether the plaintiff has a has affixed proper ad valorem court fe rt fee? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff ha f has concealed the true and materi OPD facts from the court? OPD aterial (7) Whether the suit of plainti aintiff is barred by limitation? OPD (8) Relief.” [8] After analyzing the evidence idence threadbare, the Court of Fir of First Instance he nce held that the gift deed dated 20 ted 20.03.2012 executed by defenda fendant No.1 in fa in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 & 3 acting as attorney of plaintiff intiff is illegal and al and the same deserves to be set as set aside, as it stands proved that that the relation bet ion between the parties got strained in ined in the year 2009. Defendant No nt No.1 acted on th on the basis of power of attorney date ey dated 23.05.1996. As per the Speci Special Power of A er of Attorney executed by plaintiff aintiff in favour of his cousin-Haza Hazara Singh, it w h, it was specifically mentioned that d that the same is being executed cuted in supersessio rsession of the power of attorney exec y executed in past. Power of Attorne ttorney dated 23.05

23.05.1996 was executed in favour favour of defendant No.1 and Vikra Vikram Singh. Vik h. Vikram Singh while appearing as P g as PW2 admitted of the knowledge o ledge of execution o ution of SPA in favour of Hazara Sin ara Singh. The Court of First Instanc Instance accordingly rdingly held that on the day defendant endant No.1 executed power of attorne attorney in favour o vour of his sons, he had no authority hority to act as attorney of the plainti plaintiff RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and decreed ecreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, h f, holding gift deed dated 20.03.201

03.2012 5 RSA-611-2020(O&M (O&M) to be bad. bad. Prayer made by the plaintiff see tiff seeking separate possession by wa by way of partition artition however stands dismissed rel sed relying upon judgment and decre decree (Exhibit P ibit P-17), whereby earlier suit filed filed by the plaintiff seeking separa possession ession by way of partition was dismisse ismissed. [9] Dissatisfied defendants prefe preferred appeal. The same stand stands dismissed issed by the learned Lower Appella ppellate Court, affirming the finding findings recorded by ded by the Court of First Instance. [10] The primary argument put for forth by Mr. Saini, counsel for th l for the appellants i llants is that GPA dated 23.05.1996 ne 996 never got superseded. No notice o otice of cancellation ellation/revocation thereof was eve s ever served upon the appellan pellant- defendant N dant No.1. He further submits that G that GPA dated 23.05.1996 which is ich is a registered d tered document can be revoked, alte d, altered or cancelled by a registere gistered document ment only. Thus SPA dated 19.01

19.01.2010 cannot have an effect o ffect of superseding rseding the power of attorney dated 23 ated 23.05.1996 executed by plaintiff intiff in favour of d ur of defendant No.1. [11] I have heard learned counsel f unsel for the parties and have careful arefully gone throug through record(s)of the case. [12] In the considered opinion of ion of this Court, appellant-defenda efendant No.1 is sti is still confused regarding his stan is stand. In his written statement, h ent, he claimed po ed power of attorney dated 23.05.1

23.05.1996 and also claimed to hav to have purchased hased the land from plaintiff in June n June, 1996 by paying an amount o ount of Rs.50,000/ 0,000/-. If that was not enough, he c h, he claims to have become owner b wner by way of adv of adverse possession. Still further urther he executed impugned gift dee ift deed acting as a g as attorney of the plaintiff. On bei n being asked as to how the power o ower of attorney fo ney for consideration can be accepted cepted to be sale in the light of ratio o ratio of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 RSA-611-2020(O&M (O&M) law laid d laid down by Supreme Court in t in the case of ‘Surya Lamp an p and Industries stries Private Limited versus Sta s State of Haryana and another other’, Special Lea ial Leave Petition (C) No.13917 of 2 7 of 2009 decided on 11.10.2011, M 11, Mr. Saini, coun , counsel for the appellants, has tried tried to take refuge under Para No.2 o No.2 of the Surya urya Lamp and Industries Private rivate Limited’s case (supra), whic , which reads as un as under:- “2. The modus operandi in su in such SA/GPA/WILL transactions is f s is for the vendor or person claiming to ng to be the owner to receive the agre agreed consideration, deliver possessio session of the property to the purchase chaser and execute the following docum cuments or variations thereof: (a) An Agreement of sa f sale by the vendor in favour of t of the purchaser confirming the the terms of sale, delivery of possessio session and payment of full consi onsideration and undertaking to execu xecute any document as and whe when required in future. Or An agreement of sale ag e agreeing to sell the property, with with a separate affidavit confirm firming receipt of full price and delive elivery of possession and underta dertaking to execute sale deed whenev enever required. (b) An Irrevocable G e General Power of Attorney by t by the vendor in favour of the pu he purchaser or his nominee authorisin rising him to manage, deal with with and dispose of the property witho ithout reference to the vendor. Or A General Power of Atto Attorney by the vendor in favour of t of the purchaser or his nominee inee authorising the attorney holder lder to sell or transfer the prope roperty and a Special Power of Attorn torney to manage the property. (c) A will bequeathing th ng the property to the purchaser (as (as a safeguard against the co e consequences of death of the vend vendor RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document before transfer is effected) cted). 7 RSA-611-2020(O&M (O&M) These hese transactions are not to be c e confused or equated with genui enuine ransactions where the owner of a pro transa property grants a power of Attorney ney in avour of a family member or friend to d to manage or sell his property, as he s he is not a ot able to manage the property or exe r execute the sale, personally. These a se are ransactions, where a purchaser pays t transa ys the full price, but instead of getting tting a eed of conveyance gets a SA/GPA/WI A/WILL as a mode of transfer, either ther at he instance of the vendor or at his own the in s own instance. ” [13] In the considered opinion of on of this Court, the case pleaded b aded by defendant N dant No.1 does not fall within those those exceptions. There is no pleadin leading to the effec e effect that the plaintiff was not in a a position to execute the sale. It le. It is rather a ca r a case, wherein a family member w ber who was appointed as attorney orney to manage the ge the property is claiming to have p have purchased the same by paying fu ing full price. Def . Defendant No.1 claims to have p ave purchased the property by payin paying Rs.50,000/ 0,000/-. Thus, it is admitted that the w t the worth of the property is more tha ore than Rs.99/-. Th The same could have been sold on only by way of registered sale dee le deed. Thus, the d , the defence raised by defendant(s) claiming sale on the basis of GP of GPA cannot be a ot be accepted and has been rightly rej tly rejected by the Courts below. [14] The plea raised by defendant ndant(s) with respect to acquisition o ition of ownership rship by way of adverse possession a sion also cannot be entertained in vie in view of admitted mitted fact that while executing gift de gift deed in favour of his sons, he acte he acted as attorney torney of plaintiff and never claimed aimed himself to have become absolu absolute owner and r and thus competent to execute gift d gift deed. [15] In terms of Section 215 of 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 197 1972, defendant N dant No.1 having transacted the prop e property on his own, was required uired to shoulder th lder the burden of having acted ted with the explicit consent of th of the principal. T . There is no evidence. Rather de her defendant No.1 even in the civil su ivil suit RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document claims his s his own competence to execute the te the gift deed denying the right of th ht of the 8 RSA-611-2020(O&M (O&M) plaintiff to tiff to question his action. [16] In view of the above, this Cour s Court finds that both the Courts belo ts below have rightl rightly rejected the defence of def of defendant No.1 and have correct orrectly decreed the ed the suit filed by the plaintiff. [17] Accordingly, finding no merit merits in the present appeal, the sam he same is ordered t ered to be dismissed. [18] All miscellaneous application( ation(s), if any, stand disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE .2025 22.12.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document