Hakam Singh and Others Vs Hazura Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Hakam Singh and Others Vs Hazura Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; the decree of the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff stands, the appeal being dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that the gift deed dated 20.03.2012 executed by defendant No.1 acting as attorney of the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 is illegal. +3 more

Court's answer

This Court finds that both the Courts below rightly rejected the defence of defendant No.1 and correctly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

Ratio / Principle

The case pleaded by defendant No.1 does not fall within the Surya Lamp exceptions: there is no pleading that the plaintiff was not in a position to execute the sale; rather, a family member appointed as attorney to manage the property is claiming to have purchased it by paying full price.

Key takeaways

The admitted worth of the property being more than Rs.99/-, it could have been sold only by way of registered sale deed; the defence raised claiming sale on the basis of GPA cannot be accepted and was rightly rejected by the Courts below.ratio¶[13]
The plea of acquisition of ownership by adverse possession cannot be entertained, in view of the admitted fact that while executing the gift deed in favour of his sons defendant No.1 acted as attorney of the plaintiff and never claimed to have become absolute owner.ratio¶[14]

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, RSA-611-2020 (O&M), decided 22.12.2025 (Pankaj Jain, J.): regular second appeal by the defendants (Hakam Singh and others) dismissed. The Courts below had decreed the plaintiff Hazura Singh's suit declaring illegal the gift deed dated 20.03.2012 executed by defendant No.1 acting as the plaintiff's attorney in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 (his sons); affirmed. Grounds: (1) a fresh power of attorney of January, 2010 to cousin Hazara Singh (s/o Chuni Lal) was executed in supersession of the earlier power of attorney; per S.215, Indian Contract Act, 1972, defendant No.1, having transacted the property on his own, bore the burden of proving the principal's explicit consent — there is no evidence; (2) the plea that the plaintiff's share was purchased for Rs.50,000/- (paid June, 1996) under GPA dated 23.05.1996 was rejected — outside the SA/GPA/WILL exceptions in 'Surya Lamp and Industries Private Limited versus State of Haryana and another' (SLP(C) No.13917 of 2009, dt. 11.10.2011), and with worth admitted to exceed Rs.99/- transfer was possible only by registered sale deed; (3) the adverse-possession plea fails since, while executing the gift deed in favour of his sons, defendant No.1 acted as the plaintiff's attorney and never claimed absolute ownership. Plaintiff's earlier prayer for separate possession by partition had been dismissed relying on judgment and decree (Exhibit P-17); the defendants' first appeal had likewise been dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court.

1

RSA-611-2020(O & M)

[123] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-611 - 2020 (O&M) Date of d e cision 22.12.2025

Hakam S i ngh and others …Appellants

versus

Hazura S i ngh ….Respondent

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate f o r the appellants. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Adv o cate and Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocat e for the respondent. ***

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

[1] Defendants are in appeal, a ggrieved of judgment and de c ree passed b y the Courts below, whereby th e suit filed by the plaintiff see k ing decree o f declaration to the effect th a t the gift deed dated 20.03.2 0 12 executed by defendant No.1 acting as attorney of plaintiff in favou r of defendan t Nos.2 & 3 with respect to land measuring 01 kanal 10 marlas is illegal st a nds decreed and the plaintiff ha s been held entitled to possessio n of land whi c h is the subject-matter of the di s pute.

[2] Plaintiff filed a suit, clai m ing that he originally belong s to Village R upo Majra, District Ambala a n d is currently residing at Mum b ai. Plaintiff a nd defendant No.1 are broth e rs. Out of 06 brothers, defen d ant No.1 is r e siding and settled at the native v illage. Plaintiff having full fait h in his broth e r-Hakam Singh executed powe r of attorney in the joint name o f his RAJNEESH SHARMA younger b rothers. Hakam Singh and Vik r am Singh in May, 1996 to ma n age 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

RSA-611-2020(O & M)

the prop e rty including his share in the j oint properties held by him al o ng with his brothers. The parties enjoye d cordial relations till 2009. T he brothers f ell apart after defendant No.1 e xercised his undue influence o ver father-Ra m Kishan to get Will executed i n his favour, in which, the plai n tiff was igno r ed. After plaintiff protested, f a ther cancelled the Will execute d in the year 2 009 and executed another Will i n the year 2010, whereby all th e 06 sons got e qual shares.

[3] Plaintiff claims that owing to the said dispute, he execut e d a fresh po w er of attorney in favour of his cousin-Hazara Singh son of C h uni Lal in Ja n uary, 2010 to manage his prop e rties, which was in supersessio n of the earlie r power of attorney executed b y him in favour of his real brothers. He subm i ts that there is a factum of exe c ution of fresh power of attorne y in favour o f Hakam Singh which was bro u ght to the knowledge of defen d ant No.1 by t h e plaintiff and his attorney.

[4] Defendant No.1 filed two c ivil suits against the plaintiff and other br o thers, claiming possession o v er all the properties situated in Villages R upo Majra and Sarangpur. In S eptember, 2011, plaintiff filed c ivil suit seeking declaration against defenda n t No.1 and other brothers and a lso by way o f separate applications filed be f ore the Revenue Authorities so u ght partition o f the land. Plaintiff claims t h at the parties being in thick o f lis were not having cordial relations and t h us there was no reason for hi m to execute g ift deed in favour of defend a nt Nos.2 & 3, who are sons of defendan t No.1. It is only few days pr i or to the institution of suit tha t he came to k now that defendant No.1 got s h are of the plaintiff in the prop e rty RAJNEESH SHARMA mutated in favour of his sons, i.e. defen d ant Nos.2 & 3, on the strengt h of 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

RSA-611-2020(O & M)

gift dee d dated 20.03.2012 executed b y him acting as attorney of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus claims that t h e gift deed is illegal, null and v oid and is ba d , which is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. [5] Suit was contested by defen d ant No.1 who relied upon gen e ral power o f attorney executed by plainti ff dated 23.05.1996 in his fav o ur. Defenda n t No.1 claimed that Special P o wer of Attorney executed by the plaintiff i n January, 2010 in favour of H a zara Singh is not a valid docu m ent as plainti f f was not competent to execute the same. He submits that GP A in his favou r was never cancelled by the plaintiff. He was never intimate d of any canc e llation. After plaintiff execute d GPA in favour of defendant N o.1 on 23.05.1996, the share of the plaintiff was purchased by defendants f o r a consider a tion of Rs.50,000/-, which was paid by him to the plaintiff in the month of June, 1996 and is in possession over the same since then as ow n er. Defenda n t No.1 further claimed that on 20.03.2012, he gifted land to his sons on t h e strength of GPA dated 23.0 5 .1996 and defendant No.1 fur t her claimed that his possession over the suit land since June, 1996 till 20.03.20 1 2 remained continuous, open a nd hostile to the knowledge of the plaintiff a nd thus, he has acquired ownership over the suit land by wa y of adverse possession.

[6] Defendant Nos.2 & 3 file d the separate written stateme n ts, taking a stand similar to the one pleaded b y defendant No.1.

[7] Suit filed by the plaintiff w a s put to trial by the Court of F irst

Instance, framing following issues:-

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaratio n on the grounds as prayed f o r? OPP

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4

RSA-611-2020(O & M)

(2) If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to further relief of separat e possession by way of partition and consequential relief of p ermanent injunction as prayed f or? OPP

(3) Whether the suit of plai n tiff is not maintainable in its pre s ent form? OPD

(4) Whether the plaintiff h a s no locus standi and no caus e of action to file the presen t suit? OPD

(5) Whether the plaintiff ha s affixed proper ad valorem court f ee? OPD

(6) Whether the plaintiff h as concealed the true and mat e rial facts from the court? O P D

(7) Whether the suit of plai n tiff is barred by limitation? OPD

(8) Relief.”

[8] After analyzing the eviden c e threadbare, the Court of F irst Instance h eld that the gift deed dated 2 0.03.2012 executed by defen d ant No.1 in f avour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 acting as attorney of plainti ff is illegal a n d the same deserves to be set aside, as it stands proved that the relation b etween the parties got strained in the year 2009. Defendant N o.1 acted on t he basis of power of attorney d a ted 23.05.1996. As per the Special Power o f Attorney executed by plainti f f in favour of his cousin-Ha z ara Singh, it was specifically mentioned t h at the same is being execute d in supersess i on of the power of attorney e x ecuted in past. Power of Attor n ey dated 23.05.1996 was executed in favo u r of defendant No.1 and Vik r am Singh. V ikram Singh while appearing as PW2 admitted of the knowledg e of executio n of SPA in favour of Hazara S ingh. The Court of First Inst a nce accordin g ly held that on the day defenda n t No.1 executed power of attor n ey in favour of his sons, he had no authori t y to act as attorney of the plai n tiff RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 and decr e ed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding gift deed dated 20.03.2 0 12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

5

RSA-611-2020(O & M)

to be bad. Prayer made by the plaintiff s eeking separate possession by w ay of partiti o n however stands dismissed r elying upon judgment and de c ree (Exhibit P -17), whereby earlier suit file d by the plaintiff seeking sepa r ate possessio n by way of partition was dismi s sed. [9] Dissatisfied defendants pre f erred appeal. The same st a nds dismisse d by the learned Lower Appellate Court, affirming the findings recorded b y the Court of First Instance. [10] The primary argument put f orth by Mr. Saini, counsel for the appellant s is that GPA dated 23.05.1996 n ever got superseded. No notic e of cancellation/revocation thereof was e v er served upon the appell a ntdefendan t No.1. He further submits that GPA dated 23.05.1996 which is a registere d document can be revoked, altered or cancelled by a regist e red documen t only. Thus SPA dated 19. 0 1.2010 cannot have an effec t of supersedi n g the power of attorney dated 2 3.05.1996 executed by plainti f f in favour of defendant No.1. [11] I have heard learned counse l for the parties and have caref u lly gone thro u gh record(s)of the case.

[12] In the considered opinion o f this Court, appellant-defen d ant No.1 is s till confused regarding his stand. In his written statement, he claimed p ower of attorney dated 23.0 5 .1996 and also claimed to h ave purchase d the land from plaintiff in Ju n e, 1996 by paying an amoun t of Rs.50,00 0 /-. If that was not enough, h e claims to have become owne r by way of a d verse possession. Still further he executed impugned gift d eed acting as attorney of the plaintiff. On b e ing asked as to how the powe r of RAJNEESH SHARMA attorney f or consideration can be accept e d to be sale in the light of rati o of 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

6

RSA-611-2020(O & M)

law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of ‘Surya Lamp and Industries Private Limited versus State of Haryana and another’, Special L eave Petition (C) No.13917 o f 2009 decided on 11.10.2011, M r. Saini, co u nsel for the appellants, has trie d to take refuge under Para No. 2 of the Surya Lamp and Industries Private Limited’s case ( supra ), w h ich reads as u nder:-

“2. The modus operandi in s uch SA/GPA/WILL transactions i s for the vendor or person claiming to be the owner to receive the ag r eed consideration, deliver possess i on of the property to the purch a ser and execute the following docu m ents or variations thereof:

(a) An Agreement of s ale by the vendor in favour of the purchaser confirming the terms of sale, delivery of posses s ion and payment of full con s ideration and undertaking to exe c ute any document as and w h en required in future.

Or

An agreement of sale a greeing to sell the property, wi t h a separate affidavit confir m ing receipt of full price and deli v ery of possession and unde r taking to execute sale deed when e ver required.

(b) An Irrevocable General Power of Attorney by the vendor in favour of the p urchaser or his nominee authori s ing him to manage, deal wi t h and dispose of the property wit h out reference to the vendor.

Or

A General Power of At t orney by the vendor in favour o f the purchaser or his nominee authorising the attorney holde r to sell or transfer the pro p erty and a Special Power of Atto r ney to manage the property.

(c) A will bequeathing the property to the purchaser ( a s a safeguard against the c onsequences of death of the ve n dor before transfer is effected).

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

7

RSA-611-2020(O & M)

Th e se transactions are not to be confused or equated with gen u ine tra n sactions where the owner of a p r operty grants a power of Attorne y in fav o ur of a family member or friend t o manage or sell his property, as h e is not able to manage the property or e x ecute the sale, personally. These are tra n sactions, where a purchaser pays the full price, but instead of getti n g a deed of conveyance gets a SA/GPA/ W ILL as a mode of transfer, eithe r at the instance of the vendor or at his o w n instance. ”

[13] In the considered opinion o f this Court, the case pleaded by defendan t No.1 does not fall within thos e exceptions. There is no plea d ing to the ef fe ct that the plaintiff was not in a position to execute the sale. I t is rather a c ase, wherein a family member who was appointed as attorne y to manage t h e property is claiming to have purchased the same by paying full price. Defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the property by pa y ing Rs.50,00 0 /-. Thus, it is admitted that the worth of the property is more t h an Rs.99/-. T he same could have been sold o nly by way of registered sale d e ed. Thus, the defence raised by defendant(s) claiming sale on the basis of G PA cannot b e accepted and has been rightly r e jected by the Courts below.

[14] The plea raised by defenda n t(s) with respect to acquisitio n of ownershi p by way of adverse possession also cannot be entertained in v i ew of admitt e d fact that while executing gift deed in favour of his sons, he a c ted as attorn e y of plaintiff and never claime d himself to have become abso l ute owner an d thus competent to execute gift deed.

[15] In terms of Section 215 of the Indian Contract Act, 1 9 72, defendan t No.1 having transacted the pr o perty on his own, was require d to shoulder the burden of having acted with the explicit consent of the principal. There is no evidence. Rather d efendant No.1 even in the civil suit RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 claims hi s own competence to execute t h e gift deed denying the right of the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

8

RSA-611-2020(O & M)

plaintiff t o question his action.

[16] In view of the above, this Co u rt finds that both the Courts be l ow have rig h tly rejected the defence of d e fendant No.1 and have corre c tly decreed t h e suit filed by the plaintiff.

[17] Accordingly, finding no me r its in the present appeal, the s a me is ordere d to be dismissed.

[18] All miscellaneous applicatio n (s), if any, stand disposed off.

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 22.12.20 2 5 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasone d : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.19 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document