This court summarily dismissed an appeal where the appellant failed to raise any worthwhile challenge to the lower courts' concurrent findings that a sale and GPA were legally executed without fraud. No substantial questions of law arose.
The appeal was summarily dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
�������������������� Date of decision: 1st August, 2014
Chaman Lal and others
� Appellants
Versus
Kailash and others
� Respondents
������������� ����������������!����!����������
Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
��!����!���������"���
Ram Rakha (predecessor0in0interest of the appellants as well as proforma respondents) filed the instant suit seeking declaration to the effect that he was owner of the suit property and the defendant0 respondents had no lien over the same and they were trespassers only. Further declaration was sought to the effect that agreements to sell dated 02.12.1986 and 03.02.1987, the Will dated 03.02.1987 and the General Power of Attorney along with other documents executed in favour of one Ram Lal (since deceased and now represented by defendant/respondent No.1) were illegal and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Further mandatory injunction was sought against
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
2
�������������������
said Ram Lal to hand over vacant possession of the suit property in their favour. Mesne profits were also sought by the plaintiff.
It was averred in the plaint that plaintiff along with his family members was residing in Labour Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh and were uprooted in the year 1984085. They were rehabilitated in Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh, and thus, the demised premises was allotted to the original plaintiff Rakha Ram (since deceased) in December, 1985 in response to an application dated 29.10.1984 on leasehold and hire purchase basis. The total premium of the house was settled at �19,300 and the plaintiff was required to pay monthly instalment of �118.15. After taking possession, the plaintiff was residing in the demised premises and paying the monthly instalments regularly. It was further averred that the plaintiff rented out the house in dispute to Krishan Kumar @ Krishan Singh @ Krishan Lal in the month of February, 1987 at a monthly rent of �500 excluding electricity and water charges. At that time, it was mutually agreed that the said Krishan Lal will go on paying monthly instalments and after deducting the amount of instalment to be paid to the Estate Officer for that purpose, the remaining rent will be paid to the plaintiff. It is further case of the plaintiff that the said defendant continued to pay the rent after deducting the amount of instalments till March 1997 and even rent was increased to �750 per month. It was further averred that Krishan Lal failed to pay the rent with effect from March 1997 and the original plaintiff, namely, Rakha Ram had also retired from service and thus, he needed the
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
3
�������������������
accommodation for his own use and occupation. He filed a rent petition seeking eviction of Krishan Lal on the ground that he required the demised premises for his bonafide personal necessity and also on the ground of non0payment of rent. As per the further averments, during pendency of the said rent petition, one Surinder Kumar, brother of Krishan Lal filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC stating that he was tenant in the premises in dispute, which was rented out to him by defendant Ram Lal; whereas Krishan Lal also filed a written statement alleging that he had nothing to do with the premises in dispute and that the plaintiff had sold the said premises to Ram Lal defendant No.1. Further plaintiff also came to know that said Ram Lal had also filed a rent petition against defendant No.4 on behalf of the plaintiff alleging himself to be his General Power of Attorney and when he came to know about this Attorney, he cancelled the same by executing a cancellation deed dated 06.06.2002. On further enquiry, it was revealed that defendant Ram Lal is close relation of Krishan Lal and defendant No.2 is brother of said Krishan Lal. It further came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that Krishan Lal had fabricated the agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.4 by practicing fraud and subsequently, it was revealed that said Krishan Lal had got some documents executed from him at the time of creating the tenancy and the plaintiff had no idea of ill0motives of said Krishan Lal and defendant Ram Lal at that time and he signed the documents only at their asking. It was further averred that Krishan Lal was unmarried and had died on 05.05.2002 and has not left any legal heir behind him. It
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
4
�������������������
was further averred that the plaintiff had never sold the house in dispute to Ram Lal0defendant No.1 at any point of time and he was not even known to the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 to 4 are trespassers over the suit property and have no right to use the same and are liable to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and thus, necessity arose to file the instant suit.
During the pendency of suit, plaintiff0Rakha Ram had died and the appellants who are his LRs were brought on record vide order dated 19.4.2008.
Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 3 appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections, further stating that defendant Ram Lal was the sole and absolute owner of the house in dispute, which was purchased by him from the original plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 03.02.1987 after making payment of �30,000 and the plaintiff further executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney, Will and affidavit and in view of the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, defendant Ram Lal had become sole and absolute owner of the house in dispute. It was also averred that the plaintiff had played a fraud with the defendants by withdrawing the rent petition filed by defendant Ram Lal against the tenant Rajesh Kumar and there was no question of playing any fraud as alleged. It was stated that the house was never taken on rent and the instalments have been paid by defendant Ram Lal, and Krishan Lal had no concern with the ownership rights of the house in question. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
5
�������������������
Defendant No.4 filed separate written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that he was lawful tenant in the premises in dispute which he had taken on rent from the plaintiff through his Attorney0defendant No.1 Ram Lal and has a right to stay in the premises in dispute. It was further averred that he has already filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff as well as defendant Ram Lal from forcibly dispossessing him from the demised premises wherein temporary injunction had been granted in his favour and the said suit was pending.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
After the parties led evidence, the trial Court after considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2009.
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
6
�������������������
Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, legal heirs of the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013. While dismissing the appeal and affirming the findings returned by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court observed that the plaintiff had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 Ram Lal legally and validly. The Court further found that PW02 Prem Nath, who is son of the original plaintiff Rakha Ram, in his statement has admitted that the agreement to sell was signed by his father. Moreover, there was no evidence on record about any fraud having been committed with the plaintiff by the defendants. The lower appellate Court also found that the plaintiff having parted with the house in question in favour of defendant No.1 Ram Lal after having executed an agreement to sell in his favour as well as irrevocable General Power of Attorney on receipt of entire amount of sale consideration, was not entitled to any relief.
Still aggrieved, legal representatives of the plaintiff have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court:
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
7
�������������������
with the appellants and further when the fraud has been pleaded by the father of the appellants?
However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel
for the appellants was at a loss to challenge the concurrent findings returned by the courts below to the effect that the Will and General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 Ram Lal was executed by plaintiff Rakha Ram himself. Not only this, said Rakha Ram also executed an agreement to sell and there was no evidence to prove that the defendants have committed any fraud upon the plaintiff. In fact, no worthwhile argument has been raised on behalf of the appellants to challenge the concurrent findings as recorded by both the Courts below. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the substantial questions of law, as raised in the grounds of appeal, do not arise at all.
Dismissed.
#��!����!���������$� ������
�%&%'(��"������ ���
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
Chaman Lal and others
Kailash and others
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
