Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mauja Singh And Others vs Kartar Kaur And Others on 10 March, 2026
RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
101
Date of decision: 10.03.2026
1.RSA-737-1991 (O&M)
Mauja Singh (since deceased) through his legal heirs
and another ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Kartar Kaur (since deceased) through LRs
and others ...Respondent(s)
2. RSA-738-1991 (O&M)
Mauja Singh (since deceased) through his legal heirs
and another ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Kartar Kaur (since deceased) through LRs
and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate for the appellants
in both cases.
Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Budhiraj, Advocate
for the respondents.
******
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
RSA-737-1991 (O&M) titled as Mauja Singh (since deceased) through his legal heirs and another Vs. Kartar Kaur wd/o Chanan Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others Defendants are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -2- by the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration, has been decreed by both the District Courts.
RSA-738-1991 (O&M) titled as Mauja Singh (since deceased) through his legal heirs and another Vs. Kartar Kaur wd/o Chanan Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others Defendants are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for Declaration and Permanent Injunction has been decreed by both the District Courts.
2. Both the above said Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common order as parties in both the cases are same i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in both cases are identical, and in RSA-737-1991, defendant no.2 is Chiman Singh s/o Mauja Singh; and in RSA-738-1991, defendant no.2 is Gurudevan Kaur w/o Mauja Singh; and the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from, and parties are being referred to as per their status in RSA-737-1991 titled as 'Mauja Singh (since deceased) through his legal heirs and another Vs. Kartar Kaur (since deceased) through LRs and others.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents herein, had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed and registered on 27.3.1984 in office of the Joint Sub Registrar Jalalbad by Defendant No.1 being the general attorney of Santa Singh deceased, in respect of land measuring 40 kanals 16 Marlas being 1/2 share of land DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -3- measuring 81K 12M comprised 22/M/21/2(4-18),23M/25(4-6), 25M/16(8-
0), 17(8-0), 18(8-0),22(8-0), 23(8-12) 24(8-0), 25(8-0), 19(5-19), 16(1-9) 34M/(8-0), 5(8-0), situated in village Chak Bhawra Teh. Fazi lka Distt. Ferozepur in favour of the defendant no.2 is illegal null and void and is inoperative and ineffective against rights of the plaintiffs and the same is liable to be set aside; and with the consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from further alienating the suit land in any manner in favour of any other person, and getting the same transferred in their name in revenue record on the basis of oral and as well as documentary evidence.
4. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that Santa Singh was original owner of the total land measuring 81K 12M. He had expired on 08.07.1981. Plaintiffs are the sons of Santa Singh. Defendant No.1, namely, Mauja Singh was the General Power of Attorney holder of Santa Singh. However, defendant No.1 had fraudulently sold land measuring 40K 16M of Santa Singh to his son Chiman Singh/defendant No.2 by way of a Sale Deed dated 27.01.1984 in CS 139-1 of 18.4.84; and 40K 16M vide another sale deed dated 27.1.1984 to his wife Gurudevan Kaur/defendant no.2 in CS 139-1 of 18.5.1984. It was contended that defendant No.1 had no authority to sell the suit land when Santa Singh had expired and he was no more GPA holder. It was further averred that the suit land had been sold only for a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/-; whereas the market value of the land was not less than Rs.15,000/- per killa. Defendants having DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -4- refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs, present suit was instituted on 18.04.1984.
5. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 07.05.1986. The Civil Appeal filed by the defendants/appellant was dismissed with costs by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1990. Hence, present Second Appeal by the defendants.
6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the respondents have no locus standi to file the present suit as they were unable to prove that they were sons of the deceased Santa Singh. Learned counsel contends that plaintiffs have placed nothing on record to show that they were sons of deceased Santa Singh or they were even connected in any manner with Santa Singh. The plaintiffs have led no evidence to prove their locus standi. The evidence led by them has been misread and misinterpreted and suit has been wrongly decreed.
7. It is contended that the respondents were also unable to prove that Santa Singh had expired on 08.07.1981 as alleged. Thus, the GPA executed by Santa Singh in favour of defendant No.1 was legal and valid; and, therefore, defendant No.1 had the authority to sell the land being General Power Attorney of Santa Singh. The Sale Deed dated 27.01.1984 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is legal and valid.
DIVYANSHI2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -5-
8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that while decreeing the suit the trial court has wrongly based its finding on the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide his order Ex.P.6. came to the conclusion that Santa Singh expired in the year 1981 and therefore the general power of attorney on behalf of Santa Singh in favour of appellant no.1 came to an end in the year 1981 and thus he was not competent to execute the sale deed in favour of appellant no.2 and on that basis the mutation was not sanctioned. It is submitted that, however, the learned District Courts have lost sight of the fact that said order was challenged by way of an appeal and the learned Collector, Ferozepur vide his order dated 29.10.1985 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade dated 21.2.1985 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Fazilka. Thus, the finding of the trial court which is entirely based upon the finding of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that during the pendency of the appeal, an application was made under Order 41, rule 27 CPC before the appellate authority in order to produce a copy of the order of the Collector dated 29.10.1985 and copy of the judgment dated 23.5.86 passed by the court of Shri JK Goyal, Senior Sub Judge, Ferozpur in civil suit no.140-1 dated 18.5.85. The said documents were admitted into evidence by the learned Additional District Judge and the copy of the judgment dated 23.5.86 rendered by Senior Sub Judge, was placed on record as Ex.A1, whereas the copy of the order dated DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -6- 29.10.1985 rendered by Collector, Ferozepur was placed on record as Ex.A2. The said documents, however, have not been taken into consideration by the lower appellate court. From the perusal of Ex.A1., there is a positive finding given by the Senior Sub Judge to the effect that the plaintiffs/respondents have not led any evidence in this case to prove that they are the sons of Santa Singh. It has also been held that Santa Singh never died on 8.7.1981 and the suit of the respondents was dismissed. The matter in issue was directly the same as the matter in issue in the present case. The sale deed was executed by the appellant no.1. being general power of attorney.
10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants proved that Santa Singh was alive on 27.1.1984, whereas the case of the respondents was that Santa Singh expired on 8.7.81. As the respondents alleged the date of death of Santa Singh as 8.7.81, then they were under obligation to prove the case according to section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is established principal of law that man who brings another before the judicial tribunal must rely on the strength of his own right and the clearness of his own proof and not on the want of right or weakness of proof of his adversary. It is the duty of the parties to bring their best evidence. Mere saying by one of the plaintiffs that his father Santa Singh died on 8.7.81 in the absence of any death certificate, will not prove that Santa Singh had died on 8.7.81. The best evidence was death certificate over other documentary evidence but the same was withheld. Thus, an adverse inference should have been DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -7- drawn against them. Mere statement of Kehar Singh failed to prove that Santa Singh died on 8.7.81. Moreover, Section 107 of Indian Evidence Act, deals with the presumption of continuous of life and section 108 deals with the presumption of death. These two sections are founded on the presumption that things once proved to have existed in a particular state are to be understood as continuing in that state until contrary is established. As the plaintiffs failed to prove that Santa Singh had died on 8.7.81, therefore Santa Singh is to be presumed to be alive on 27.1.1984 when the sale deed was executed, even if no evidence was led by the appellants to that effect.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that against the judgment and decree dated 7.5.1986 passed by the trial court, the present appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ferozepur. The said appeal was accepted exparte on 15.12.1987 and it was held that Santa Singh was alive on 27.1.84, and before the execution of the sale deed Santa Singh had not revoked the power of attorney. According to the sale deed executed by appellant no.1 acting as attorney of Santa Singh was not held to be illegal and void. For setting aside exparte decree, the respondents filed an application. The Additional District Judge vide his order dated 13.10.1990 set aside the exparte decree against the respondents except Chanan Singh and the application on behalf of the Chanan Singh was dismissed. Thus, the findings of the lower appellate court qua the respondent nos. 1 to 5 have become final and are binding upon them. But the said fact has not been taken into consideration. DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -8-
12. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts be set aside.
13. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs opposes submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the fact that Santa Singh had died on 08.07.1981 stands proved from the entry dated 28.07.1981 Ex.PW4/1 recorded in the Register of Cremains of persons who have passed away in the Gurudwara Pataal Puri Kirat Pur Sahib. As such, GPA executed in favour of Mauja Singh by Santa Singh was no longer in effect. Consequentially, the Sale Deed dated 27.01.1984 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void.
14. As regards parentage, learned Senior Counsel submits that there are categoric findings of fact returned by both the District Courts to the effect that plaintiffs have proven to be sons of Santa Singh. Learned Senior Counsel contends that findings of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in Second Appeal unless the same are shown to be perverse. It is submitted that the appellants have failed to lead any evidence whatsoever to disprove the said concurrent findings of fact by both the District Courts.
15. It is further submitted that the alleged GPA executed by Santa Singh in favour of Mauja Singh has not been placed on record by the appellants. Moreover, Mauja Singh himself has never appeared in Court to prove his case. Furthermore, the fraudulent nature of the Sale Deeds executed by defendant No.1 is made out from the fact that in RSA-737- 1991, defendant No.1 Mauja Singh has executed Sale Deed in favour of his DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) -9- son Chiman Singh/defendant No.2; whereas in RSA-738-1991, defendant No.1 Mauja Singh had executed Sale Deed dated 27.01.1984 in favour of his wife Gurdevan Kaur. It is submitted that each Sale Deed is qua the land measuring 40K 16M; thereby disposing of total land holding measuring 81K 12M owned by Santa Singh. Moreover, the said Sale Deeds are executed for a sum of Rs.5,000/- only; whereas market value of the said land at the relevant time is Rs.15,000/- per killa. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeals be dismissed.
16. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents.
17. Brief chronological sequence of events is as under: -
17.10.1980: Registered GPA executed by Santa Singh in favour of Mauja Singh.
27.1.1984: Sale Deed allegedly executed by Santa Singh through his GPA Mauja Singh in favour of Gurdevan w/o Mauja Singh for land measuring 40K-16M. (Mutation No. 446 entered by Patwari in favour of Gurdevan).
27.01.1984: Sale Deed allegedly executed by Santa Singh through his GPA Mauja Singh qua land measuring 40K-16M being half share of 91K-12M for total sale consideration of Rs. 5000/- in favour of Chiman Singh son of Mauja Singh. (Mutation No. 447 entered by Patwari in favour of Chiman).
27.01.1984: Sale Deed executed by Santa Singh (son of Gian Singh son of Ahla Singh) through his GPA Mauja Singh in favour of Kiran wife of Ramesh DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) - 10 -
Chander Bawa for the land measuring 47K-13M. (Mutation No. 448 entered by Patwari in favour of Kiran).
18.04.1984: Civil Suit No. 139-1 'Chanan Singh etc. Vs. Mauja Singh & Anr.' instituted challenging Sale Deed executed by Mauja Singh being General Power of Attorney holder of Santa Singh in favour of Chiman Singh.
18.05.1984: Civil Suit No. 139-1 'Chanan Singh etc. Vs. Mauja Singh & Anr.' instituted challenging Sale Deed executed by Mauja Singh being General Power of Attorney holder of Santa Singh in favour of Gurdevan. 21.02.1985: Ex.P-6 AC Ist Grade, Fazilka rejected the mutations No. 446, 447 & 448 entered in favour of Gurdevan, Chiman & Kiran, respectively. 29.10.1985: Ld. Collector allowed the appeals preferred by the appellants herein and Kiran and set aside order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade. 07.05.1986: Judgment & Decree passed in Civil Suit No.139-1 against Mauja Singh & Gurdevan by Sh. J.K. Goel, Ld. Sub Judge, Ferozepur. 07.05.1986: Judgment & Decree passed in Civil Suit No. 139-1 against Mauja Singh & Chiman Singh by Sh. J.K. Goel, Ld. Sub Judge, Ferozepur. 15.12.1987: Appeals preferred by Mauja Singh etc. against Judgment & Decrees dated 07.05.1986 was allowed ex parte by Ld. ADJ, Ferozepur. {As original plaintiffs were proceeded ex-parte and did not appear.} 13.10.1990: Application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein to re-hear the appeal. The same was allowed by Id. ADJ, Ferozepur vide order dated 13.10.1990.
DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-737-1991 (O&M) - 11 -
30.11.1990: Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur had decreed the suits of the plaintiffs vide separate judgments and decrees dated 07.05.1986. The Civil Appeals bearing Nos. 15 and 16 both dated 13.06.1986 filed by the defendants were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepore vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1990. Hence, the present second appeals by the defendants.
18. The first contention on behalf of the appellants is that the respondents had not produced the best evidence in the form of Death Certificate to prove that Santa Singh had expired on 08.07.1981. In this regard, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has made reference to Entry No. 13388 dated 28.07.1981 Ex.PW4/1 in Register No. 96 of the Gurudwara Pataal Puri Kirat Pur Sahib (at page 163 of the LCR) in respect of the cremains of the persons who have passed away. Perusal of the said Entry No. 13388 shows that it is duly recorded therein that Santa Singh son of Alla Singh had died at the age of 90 on 08.07.1981 and that the persons who poured the cremains in the water were his sons. Perusal of the record also shows that the appellants have failed to rebut the said documents.
19. Moreover, the fact that Santa Singh had died on 08.07.1981 is also proved from Ex.P6, which is copy of the order dated 21.2.1985 passed Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Fazilka, who, vide the said order dated 21.2.1985 Ex.P-6 had refused to sanction mutation in favour of defendant No.2. The ACIG Fazilka had duly recorded the evidence in the matter; and DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) - 12 -
vide order Ex.P6 had given the finding that Santa Singh had expired in 1981.
20. Contention of the appellants that the above said order dated 21.02.1985 Ex.P6 passed by learned Assistant Collector 1 st Grade Fazilka stood set aside by the Collector, Ferozpur, vide order dated 29.10.1985 Ex.A-1 is without merit as vide the order dated 29.10.1985, the Collector, Ferozpur had merely remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Fazilka "With a direction that he should ascertain the correct parentage of Santa Singh by summoning the original Jamabandi and allowing the parties to produce evidence in order to arrive at correct date of death of Santa Singh. The appellants are directed to appear in the lower court on 18.11.1985." The case was also remanded on the ground that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade should ascertain the correct parentage of Santa Singh by summoning the original jamabandi and the revenue record. The ld. First Appellate Court has duly noted that the judgment Ex.A1 is not final and the judgment Ex.A1 cannot be taken to be conclusive to hold that Santa Singh had not died on 8.7.1981. Despite repeated Court queries learned counsel for the appellants is unable to apprise this Court as to what was the final outcome of the remand. In fact, ld. counsel for the appellants has acknowledge that he does not know as to what happened after the learned Collector, Ferozepur had remanded the matter back to learned Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Fazilka. Thus, the appellants are unable to bear out their contention that Santa Singh had not expired on 8.7.1981.
DIVYANSHI2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-737-1991 (O&M) - 13 -
21. From the above unrebutted evidence on record, it is clearly established that the GPA in favour of defendant No.1 was no longer effective on the date of execution of Sale Deed dated 27.01.1984 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. As per provisions of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, GPA comes to an end at the death of either party i.e. Principal or Agent. Thus, Sale Deed dated 27.01.1984 was executed by defendant no.1 without authority.
22. Relevant findings of learned Trial Court in respect of death of Santa Singh, are contained in paras 7 and 8 of the judgment dated 07.05.1986 passed by ld. Senior Sub Judge Ferozepur, which are as under:-
"7. To prove these issues, the plaintiffs examined the village Patwari Ujagar Singh PW1 and Kehar Singh, one of the plaintiffs appeared as PW2. They also tendered into evidence copies of the revenue record Ex.P2 to P5 and copy of the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ex. P6 and copy of the sale deed in question Ex.P.7. The defendants did not adduce any evidence except filing jamabandi of the suit land Ex.D1 for the year 1981-82. The plaintiffs in rebuttal of issue no.3 filed jambandi Ex.P8 for the year 1978-79 regarding the land owned by Santa Singh deceased in village Chanan Khera. The land in dispute is situated in village Chak Bawra jamabandi Ex.P.8 has been produced to show that the land of village Chanan Khera on the death of Santa Singh was mutated in the names of the plaintiffs, they being his sons.
8. On going through the evidence and the documents, I find that there is no dispute between the parties that defendant no.1 as being the general attorney of Santa Singh sold the suit land to his son Chiman Singh defendant No.2 for a sum of DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) - 14 -
Rs.5,000/- in all on 27.1.84. The question to be decided is whether on 27.4.84 the original owner of the suit land was alive or he was dead. The defendants have not led any evidence that Santa Singh was alive on 27.1.84. On the other hand Nehar Singh plaintiff appearing as PW2 deposed that his father Santa Singh expired on 8.7.81. This question arose even before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade before whom the sale deed in question, copy of which is Ex. P.6, was produced, for sanction of mutation in favour of defendant No.2. There the parties had a dispute that the sale deed was fictitious as Santa Singh had expired in 1981 and defendant no.1 could not, therefore, sell the suit land as his general attorney in 1984 to defendant No.2. The Assistant Collector recorded evidence in the matter and vide his order Ex.P.6 came to the conclusion that that Santa Singh expired in the year 1981. The general power of attorney on behalf of Santa Singh in favour of defendant no.1 has came to an end in 1981 and he therefore, was not entitled to sell the land of Santa Singh to defendant no.2. The learned Assistant Collector refused to sanction the mutation in favour of defendant no.2. The defendants, as already said, have not led any evidence to rebut either the correctness of the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Ex.P6 or the oral testimony of Kehar Singh PW2. Jamabandi Ex.P.8 of the year 1978-79, even though of village Chanan Khera, bears a red entry made by the village Patwari that on the death of Santa Singh, owner of the suit land, the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of his son i.e. the present plaintiff. This jamabandi was issued by the village Patvari on 19.1.1982. This entry being in the jamabandi of 1978-79 and it having been issued by the village patwari on 13.1.82, itself gives credence that Santa Singh expired in 1981. These being the circumstances, I am of DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) - 15 -
the confirmed view that Santa Singh was not alive and defendant no.1 posing himself as his general attorney sold the suit land to defendant no.2 in 1984. The general attorney in favour of defendant no.1. came to an end when Santa Singh expired in 1981."
23. As regards parentage of the plaintiffs, the same is also duly proved on record. The plaintiffs have unequivocally proved that they are sons of Santa Singh. Unnecessary confusion is sought to be created by the defendant in respect of one inadvertent incorrect entry due to clerical mistake in the revenue record where in Santa Singh is shown to be son of Gian Singh. Whereas correct facts are that Santa Singh is son of Alla Singh son of Gian Singh. The said incorrect revenue entry also stood corrected subsequently by the Naib Tehsildar. The issue as to whether plaintiffs are sons of Santa Singh or not, is settled by the following findings of the Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur in para 9 of the judgment dated 07.05.1986, as under:
"9. Ld.counsel for the defendants tried to point out that in the jamabandi of 1981-82, Ex.D.2 the name of the father of Santa Singh deceased was mentioned to be Gian Singh son of Alla Singh, whereas Ex.P.1 in the earlier jamabandis/for the year 1960-61, Ex.P3 for 1972-73 Ex.P4 for 1976-77 and Ex.15 for 1981-82, he is shown to be the son of Alla Singh son Gian Singh. This seems to me to be a clerical mistake and the village Patwari who has appeared as PW 1 has deposed that the jamabandi of 1981-82 in which the name of the father of Santa Singh was wrongly shown to be Gian Singh son of Alla Singh, was ordered to be corrected by the Naib Tehsildar who DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) - 16 -
came to attest the jamabandi for the year 1981-82. Accordingly the name of the father of Santa Singh was correctly mentioned as Alla Singh son of Gian Singh. This seems to be the reason that correct jamabandi of 1981-82 Ex.P5 was issued to the plaintiffs showing their grand father's name to be Alla Singh son of Gian Singh."
24. Parentage of the plaintiffs was also proved from the evidence of PW1 Ujagar Singh Patwari. Thus, it was conclusively proven that the plaintiffs are sons of Santa Singh. Title of the property has been proved from the oral evidence of PW2 Kehar Singh; and the documentary evidence Ex.P8 i.e. revenue record.
25. It may also be clarified that after suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court, the defendants had gone in Civil Appeal. Initially, Civil Appeals filed by the defendants were decreed exparte by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.1987 as the respondents/original plaintiffs were proceeded against ex parte as they did not appear before the first Appellate Court. However, it is also admitted fact on record that subsequently, an application was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 13.10.1990. It may further be clarified that Chanan Singh, plaintiff No.1 had initially appeared in the said Civil Appeals however, had subsequently not appeared. Accordingly vide order dated 13.10.1990, the applications filed by the plaintiffs to rehear the appeals, were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur to the effect that exparte judgment and decree DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-737-1991 (O&M) - 17 -
dated 15.12.1987 is set aside only against Kehar Singh, Tara Singh, Kaka Singh and Harjit Singh, but application on behalf of Chanan Singh represented through LRs has been dismissed. It has been sought to contended by learned counsel for the appellants that as the said order dated 13.10.1990 has not challenged by LRs of Chanan Singh; and therefore, the said order has attained finality qua Chanan Singh; meaning thereby, that the suit of Chanan Singh against the defendants stands dismissed, and the impugned Sale Deeds would be operative to the extent of share of Chanan Singh. However, the said argument of the appellants is on the face of it, misguided as once the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1987 is set aside in totality, and all the Courts have come to conclusion that impugned Sale Deeds were executed without authority on the basis of an ineffective GPA, then the said Sale Deeds would not be alive even qua Chanan Singh. The impugned Sale Deeds would come to an end qua all the legal heirs of Santa Singh; and the said Sale Deeds cannot be sustained qua anyone.
26. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings.
27. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the District Courts. Hence, both the present Regular Second Appeals are dismissed.
28. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
10.03.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.03.13 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document