9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authorization of Malook Singh as general attorney. 2. Validity of the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1988. 3. Entitlement of plaintiffs to joint possession. 4. Claim of adverse possession by defendant No.1. 5. Jurisdiction of the civil court. 6. Maintainability of the suit. 7. Time-barred nature of the suit. 8. Locus-standi of the plaintiffs. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Authorization of Malook Singh: Issue: Whether Malook Singh is duly authorized as the general attorney of the plaintiff. Analysis: The court examined if Malook Singh, as the special power of attorney, could replace the plaintiff to prove the nature of the transactions. It was concluded that Malook Singh, appointed in 1990, could not testify on matters that occurred in 1966, which were in the specific knowledge of the plaintiffs. The court cited the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Limited, emphasizing that a power of attorney holder cannot depose for the principal on matters requiring personal knowledge. 2. Validity of the Judgment and Decree Dated 10.2.1988: Issue: Whether the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1988 are null and void. Analysis: The court found that the ex-parte decree obtained by the defendant No.1 on 10.2.1988, claiming ownership by adverse possession, was binding upon the plaintiffs as it was not set aside. The decree was considered valid and binding as it was obtained legally. 3. Entitlement of Plaintiffs to Joint Possession: Issue: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to joint possession of the suit land. Analysis: The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on sale deeds from 1966 and 1967. However, the court noted that the original sale deeds were never produced, and the transactions were not acted upon for 24-25 years. The court concluded that the sale deeds were sham transactions intended to avoid land ceiling laws and did not confer ownership to the plaintiffs. 4. Claim of Adverse Possession by Defendant No.1: Issue: Whether defendant No.1 has become the owner by adverse possession. Analysis: The court held that defendant No.1's possession since 1966 did not ripen into adverse possession as the sale deeds were sham transactions. However, the court recognized the defendant's alternative plea of adverse possession against Rajinder Krishan and Kewal Krishan, which was validated by the decree dated 10.2.1988. 5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court: Issue: Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Analysis: The court found that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, dismissing the defendant's claim to the contrary. 6. Maintainability of the Suit: Issue: Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form. Analysis: The court concluded that the suit was maintainable, rejecting the defendant's plea that it was not. 7. Time-barred Nature of the Suit: Issue: Whether the suit is time-barred. Analysis: The court held that the suit was not time-barred, dismissing the defendant's claim that the suit was filed beyond the permissible time limit. 8. Locus-standi of the Plaintiffs: Issue: Whether the plaintiffs have the locus-standi to file the suit. Analysis: The court determined that the plaintiffs did not have the locus-standi to file the suit as the sale deeds were sham transactions and did not confer any title or ownership upon them. Conclusion: The court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership, and the transactions were deemed sham and fictitious. The defendant No.1's claim of adverse possession was validated, and the civil court's jurisdiction and the maintainability of the suit were affirmed. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
