Suman Chand vs Krishan Gopal and Others

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property in dispute is under physical possession of the petitioner. The documents i.e. the power of attorney and the agreement to sell are fictitious and fraudulent documents. He further stated that even if these documents are taken into consideration, still share of the petitioner comes to 51% and that of the respondents 49% in the suit property.

Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the power of attorney and the agreement to sell and other documents have been executed by the petitioner. No fraud could have been committed on her as she is an educated lady. He further stated that only it is slip of pen where purchase of stamp papers has been shown as 18.3.1996 while the power of attorney has been attested by the Sub Registrar at the time of registration on 15.3.1996.

I have gone through the impugned order/judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate court.

learned counsel for the petitioner has placed photographs, Annexures P-10 to P-13 on record. In these photographs, it is clearly shown that the petitioner is in physical possession of the suit property i.e. the petrol pump. In the photographs, Annexure P-10, not only she is standing on the premises of the petrol pump, but also is seen working in the office. The findings on the points viz. power of the attorney, transfer of the land and the respondent being inducted as a partner in the firm has yet to be adjudicated upon by the trial Court after the evidence is adduced by the parties. The petitioner has a prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed and the judgment dated 19.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind is set aside and the order dated 31.3.2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon is restored til! the final disposal of the suit.