In this regular second appeal challenging a land dispute judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellant's claim of mental incapacity was contradicted by his filing suit through a power of attorney holder, and lower courts' findings on evidence were not faulted. No substantial question of law arose.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
112
RSA-3891-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.11.2024
Sukhdev Singh @ Dev Singh
....Appellant
VERSUS
Surjit Singh and Others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Anureet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
CM-10487-C-2019
CM-10489-C-2019
RSA-3891-2019 (O&M)
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.11.05 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-3891-2019
-2-
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.11.05 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-3891-2019
-3-
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.11.05 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-3891-2019
-4-
fraud taking advantage of the weak mental faculties of the plaintiffappellant, however, the same was not filed through next friend but was filed through a power of attorney holder i.e. his wife. The suit having been filed on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant was a person of weak mental faculties and hence could not have executed the sale deed is not substantiated as had it been so then he could not lawfully have executed the power of attorney either. Having filed the suit through a power of attorney holder negates the stand taken by the plaintiff-appellant that he had weak mental faculties. Further still, both the Courts have concurrently found that there was nothing on the record to even suggest that the plaintiff-appellant was not in a position to execute the sale deed. DW1 Inder Kumar, Registry Clerk had proved on the record the sale deed and Jamabandi as Ex.D11 and Ex.D12. Another witness DW2 Harnek Singh had appeared in the witnessbox and had deposed that the sale deed had been prepared at the behest of Sukhdev Singh and after admitting the contents to be correct Sukhdev Singh had appended his thumb impressions on the same in the presence of Randhir Singh and thereafter that witness had also put his signatures in the presence of Sukhdev Singh. It was further stated by the said witness that the draft sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Patiala who verified the facts from Sukhdev Singh and read over the contents to Sukhdev Singh. Photographs of the vendor, vendee and the witnesses were also taken. Despite lengthy cross-examination nothing could not be elicited from the said witness. In the absence of any cogent evidence that the plaintiffappellant had weak mental faculties and that the sale deed was the result of
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.11.05 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
RSA-3891-2019
-5-
fraud, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
( ALKA SARIN ) 04.11.2024 JUDGE jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.11.05 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there arose any substantial question of law requiring interference in the second appeal?
Whether the lower courts' findings regarding the mental capacity of the appellant to execute the sale deed and file the suit standing compromised the decision?
Whether the present appeal had any merits warranting interference?
Sukhdev Singh @ Dev Singh
Surjit Singh
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
