Baj Singh and others vs Smt. Gejo and others

S.P. Goyal, J.—Shrimati Gejo and Shrimati Mejo, daughters of Sajjan Singh, were joint owners in two Khewats measuring 43 Kanals 1 Marias and 322 Kanals 17 Marlas. They appointed Bagicha Singh as their Mukhtiar to manage that land as they were residing far away in tehsils Rajpura and Kaithal whereas the land in dispute was situated at village Chhianpari tehsil Zira. In the two separate agreements with Assa Singh and Ghulla Singh, 1/15th share of land measuring 43 Kanals 1 Maria and 2/15th share of land measuring 322 Kanals 17 Marias, of each of the two sisters Shrimati Gejo and Shrimati Mejo were agreed to be sold. Vide third agreement in favour of Bahal Singh, 1/15th share of land measuring 43 Kanals 1 Maria and 2/15th share of land measuring 322 Kanals and 17 Marias belonging to both the sisters were stipulated to be sold. The sale deeds were to be executed by June 30, 1975 and as the same was not done, three suits were filed by Assa Singh, Ghulla Singh and Banal Singh. During the pendency of the suits, Assa Singh and Ghulla Singh died and their legal representatives were brought on the record.

Shrimati Gejo and Shrimati Mejo contested the suits. They pleaded that Bagicha Singh was never authorised to bell or mortgage their land and was appointed Mukhtiar-i-am only to manage the same. The clause in the power of attorney was stated to have been got entered by keeping them in the dark.

The trial Court, holding that there was no intention to authorise the attorney to alienate the property in dispute, upheld the plea of the defendants and dismissed the suits. Aggrieved thereby, three separate appeals (Regular First Appeals Nos. 645, 646 and 805 of 1978) have been filed by the three plaintiffs. As the appeals involve similar facts and identical question of law, all of them are being disposed of by this judgment.

Both the respondents Shrimati Gejo and Shrimati Mejo are illiterate village women. No evidence was led to show that they had consciously got entered in the Mukhtiarnama the clause authorising Bagicha Singh to alienate their property. That apart, the trial Court relied on the judgment of Bhide, J. in Mt. Jan v. Mt. Fajjan AIR 1938 Lah. 351, where a similar clause under similar circumstances in a power of attorney came up for interpretation and it was held that the attorney was not intended to be authorised to alienate the property. No decision to the contrary was cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court that the attorney was never intended to be authorised with the power of alienation has to be affirmed.

Apart from the above reasons, it would also be highly unjust and inequitable to allow the specific performance of the agreement which was executed fourteen years back because the land prices have increased manifold since then, No fault, therefore, can be found with the impugned judgments and these appeals are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.