Rajiv Mahajan and Others vs Ajit Kaur and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure p-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar whereby while disposing of the application filed by the petitioners-defendants No. 3 to 6 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (in short "the CPC"), the prayer of the petitioner for rejection of plaint, has been declined. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondent No. 1-plaintiff has filed suit for possession wherein it is alleged that sale deed dated 17.10.2007 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 and sale deed dated 17.04.2008 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 6 are illegal, void ab initio, without consideration and have no effects on the rights of the plaintiff. In addition to the same, prayer for permanent injunction has also been made. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners moved application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC which has been declined. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that respondent No. 1-plaintiff through his general power of attorney is a party to the sale deed dated 17.10.2007 and he claims that sale deeds dated 17.10.207 and 17.04.2008 have not been validly executed, therefore, he is bound to affix the ad valorem court fee on the consideration of the sale deeds. The learned counsel further contends that even if the general power of attorney was allegedly cancelled on 16.10.2007, respondent No. 3-Harinder Kaur was not having any knowledge about the same, therefore, respondent No. 1 can have no benefit of the cancellation deed to avoid payment of court fee. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon Dalbir Singh Vs. Ranjit Singh and Others, . In addition to the same, the learned counsel also relies upon Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, , Satwinder Kaur Vs. Surjeet Singh and Others, , Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan, (1982) 84 P.L.R. 127, Ajmer Singh Vs. Punjab Singh and Another, and Om Parkash Vs. Inderawati and Others .

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and contends that the sale deeds dated 17.10.2007 and 17.4.2008 are per se result of fraud, as alleged general power of attorney dated 22.6.2007 executed in favour of respondent No. 2-Harbans Singh by respondent No. 1 was cancelled on 16.10.2007 and thereafter the sale deed dated 17.10.2007 executed by alleged general power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 3-Harinder Kaur is without any right. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies upon Kulwinder Kaur and Others Vs. Sukhwant Singh and Others, , Sumer Singh and Others Vs. Amar Singh and Others, , Jaswinder Singh and Others Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Another, , Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal Vs. Arya Mittar and Others and Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur (1982) 84 P.L.R. 127.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

From the perusal of record, it is prima facie clear that the general power of attorney was cancelled on 16.10.2007 and the sale deeds have been executed subsequent to the alleged cancellation. Prima facie, it appears that respondent No. 2-Harbans Singh had no valid right to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3. Once it is prima facie shown that the sale deeds are subsequent to cancellation of general power of attorney, then it is prima facie deemed that respondent No. 1 plaintiff was not a party to those sale deeds. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to unawareness of alleged cancellation of general power of attorney is concerned, the same appears to be misconceived. The case law Dalbir Singh v. Ranjit Singh and others (supra) is found to be distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case, the power of attorney on the basis of which the sale deeds were executed, was itself a forged document. Here is a case where the registered general power of attorney has been cancelled on 16.10.2007 by a registered cancellation deed. It is settled principle of law that once a registered document is cancelled by registered cancellation deed, then cancellation operates as constructive public notice. The case laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure P-5). Dismissed.