RSA-2665-2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) RSA-2665-2024 (O&M) Aman Goyal @ Aman Kumar Goel ...... Appellant Versus Mala Kumari Sharma and others ...... Respondents (ii) RSA-2706-2024 (O&M) Aman Goyal @ Aman Kumar Goel ...... Appellant Versus Chunni Lal (deceased) through his LRs and others ...... Respondents Decided on : 22.05.2025 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL *** Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the respondents. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J (ORAL) By way of the present judgment, I propose to dispose of two regular second appeals, both directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2024, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide which two appeals arising out of two suits were decided. 2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.05.26 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA-2665-2024 (O&M) 2 per their original status. 3. The first suit was instituted by one Smt. Mala Kumar Sharma against Aman Goyal (defendant No.1), Chunni Lal [defendant No.2 (deceased) through his LRs], Smt. Kulbhushan Anand (defendant No.3) and Smt. Anita (defendant No.4). The second suit was filed by Aman Goyal against Chunni Lal [defendant No.1 (deceased) through his LRs], Smt. Kulbhushan Anand (defendant No.2), Smt. Anita (defendant No.3) and Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma (defendant No.4). The dispute is as regards residential plot No.71, measuring 183.85 square yards, situated in Ashoka Enclave Main, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). 4. Chunni Lal was the owner of the suit property. He had purchased the same vide conveyance deed dated 13.05.1988. He appointed Smt. Kulbhushan Anand as his general power of attorney vide registered GPA dated 30.05.1988. Smt. Kulbhushan Anand, being the GPA holder of Chunni Lal, executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Anita on 04.08.1988 and alienated the suit property to her. Smt. Anita, in turn, executed a registered sale deed dated 08.06.1992 in favour of Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma and thereby alienated the suit property to her. Subsequently, Chunni Lal executed a sale deed dated 11.04.2005 in favour of Aman Goyal and is stated to have again alienated the suit property to him. Aman Goyal started raising construction over the same. When Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma came to know that Aman Goyal had taken forcible possession of the suit property and had started raising construction, she reported the matter to the police. Ultimately, she instituted a suit for possession (To be referred as suit No.1), out of which RSA No.2665 of 2024 has arisen. Aman Goyal instituted a suit for MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.05.26 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA-2665-2024 (O&M) 3 declaration that he was the owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.04.2005 and that the GPA dated 30.05.1988 and the consequential sale deeds dated 04.08.1988 and 08.06.1992 were illegal, null and void as the GPA was a forged and fabricated document (To be referred as suit No.2. RSA No.2706 of 2024 has arisen out of this suit). 5. Both Courts have non-suited Aman Goyal and have returned findings in favour of Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma as a result of which the afore-titled two appeals have been preferred by Aman Goyal. 6. Since the basic case set up by the parties has been referred to above, the facts are not required to be gone into in detail. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- (In suit No.1) 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the present suit is counter blast to the suit filed by defendant no.1 ? OPD 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 7. Relief (Suit No.2) 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the house MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.05.26 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA-2665-2024 (O&M) 4 detailed in para no.1 of the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the Will executed by Hari Kishan is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff ? OPP 3. Whether GPA dt. 30.5.1988 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant, sale deed dt. 4.8.1988, executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.3 and sale deed dt. 8.6.1992 in favour of defendant no.4 executed by defendant no.3 is illegal, null and void not binding on the plaintiff ? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment of material facts from the Court ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD 8. Relief. 8. Parties led their respective evidence. 9. As has been noticed above, the suit for possession filed by Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma was decreed whereas the suit filed by Aman Goyal for declaration was dismissed. 10.. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent- caveator and have perused the record which was duly requisitioned. 11. It has been strenuously urged by Sh. Amit Jhanji, learned Senior counsel representing the appellant that both Courts have gravely erred in non- suiting the appellant. It has been submitted that Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma failed to prove that the GPA dated 30.05.1988 was a validly executed document. It has been submitted that it is quite strange that having allegedly purchased the suit property in the year 1992, she did not obtain possession of the same and even did MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.05.26 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA-2665-2024 (O&M) 5 not come to know about a house having been constructed by Aman Goyal. Learned Senior counsel submits that this itself would show that the GPA and the consequent sale deeds were infact forged and fabricated documents. Learned Senior counsel submits that in any case, Aman Goyal became the owner of the suit property by way of a valid registered sale deed and, therefore, the Courts wrongly non-suited him. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to the oral and documentary evidence led on the record of the case. 12. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-caveator submits that there is no error in the judgments passed by both Courts and that Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma had proved her case by leading cogent evidence whereas Aman Goyal had failed to prove that the GPA was a forged and fabricated document. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 14. The factum of the GPA and the sale deeds having been executed is not disputed. To reiterate, Chunni Lal became the owner of the suit property by way of conveyance deed dated 13.05.1988 (Ex.PW5/1). He executed registered GPA in favour of Smt. Kulbhushan Anand on 30.05.1988 (Ex.P1 & Ex.PW3/1). Smt. Kulbhushan Anand executed a registered sale deed on 04.08.1988 (Ex.P2 & Ex.PW3/2) in favour of Smt. Anita and Smt. Anita executed a registered sale deed on 08.06.1992 (Ex.P3 & Ex.PW5/2) in favour of Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma. Chunni Lal then executed a sale deed on 11.04.2005 (Ex.D2) in favour of Aman Goyal as well. The whole issue involves around the GPA. Once Aman Goyal had set up a case that it was a forged and fabricated general power of attorney, it was MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.05.26 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA-2665-2024 (O&M) 6 for him to prove the same. The onus to prove issue No.3 in suit No.2 was on Aman Goyal. However, he miserably failed to prove the same. Per contra, Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma was able to prove that the GPA had been validly executed. PW1 Rajesh (ARC Sub-Registrar) and PW2 Arjun Singh (deed writer) proved the execution of the GPA dated 13.05.1988 and sale deed dated 04.08.1988. PW3 Jai Ram Sharma, who was a deed writer proved that he had scribed the GPA dated 30.05.1988 Ex.PW3/1 and sale deed dated 04.08.1988 Ex.PW3/2 on the instructions of the parties and Chunni Lal who were present on the spot. Infact Ashok Kumar son of Chunni Lal also appeared as DW3, having been examined by Aman Goyal. Even he admitted the signatures of Chunni Lal on the GPA. Both sides examined hand writing and finger pring experts, who as expected, gave reports in favour of the parties who had engaged them. Both Courts accepted the report of the expert examined by Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma and rejected the report of the expert examined by Aman Goyal. In fact, the trial Court examined the signatures and learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the signatures were of Chunni Lal. I do not find any illegality in the said acceptance and rejection of the particular reports. Still further, even the ARC (PW1) stepped into the witness box and deposed that the GPA had been registered. 15. Even the original conveyance deed dated 13.05.1988 which had been executed in favour of Chunni Lal was in possession of Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma. Though, there is no such legal requirement that the original conveyance deed has to be in possession of the genuine buyer but normally, when a property is alienated, all original documents are handed over to the buyer. One thing which clearly emerges is that Chunni Lal was not the owner of the suit property when he MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.05.26 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA-2665-2024 (O&M) 7 executed the sale deed dated 11.04.2005 Ex.D2 in favour of Aman Goyal. Under the circumstances, Chunni Lal could not have transferred a better title than he himself had. The Courts also noticed the fact that Chunni Lal never challenged the GPA during his lifetime. No complaint was submitted to any authority. This is also a factor which cannot be totally ignored. 16. Both Courts examined the matter in detail and rightly non-suited the present appellant and also rightly decreed the suit filed by Smt. Mala Kumari Sharma. Nothing has been found in the impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference in second appeal. That being so, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 22.05.2025 (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.05.26 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh