( 2025:HHC:17892 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA No. 8 of 2001 a/w C.O. No. 119 of 2001 Reserved on:24.03.2024 Date of decision : 05.06.2025 ____________________________________________________ Pushpa Devi and others ……….. Appellants Versus Amit Kumar and others ……...Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta and Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. : Mr. Anand Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3(a)-cross objectors. : Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocate, for respondent No. 4(a) to 4(c)-cross objectors. : Name of respondent No.3(b) stands deleted. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The appellants in the case at hand are the successors- in-interest of one Shri Vishwa Nath, who was the plaintiff before 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiff in the case at hand had filed a suit for declaration and possession. Declaration was being sought with respect to the power of attorney purported to have been executed on 25.04.1994 and registered on 26.06.1994 in favour of defendant No.1 by the plaintiff. The declaration was being sought on account of the fact that the aforesaid power of attorney was a forged one and an outcome of coercion, duress. Further declaration was being sought with respect to sale deed made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 based on the aforesaid power of attorney dated 28.04.1994, registered on 29.04.1994, qua which a mutation was attested on 17.05.1994. Declaration was also being sought with respect to subsequent sales made by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.4 on 23.01.1996 and in favour of defendant No. 3 on 29.04.1995. Mutations made in pursuance thereto were also sought to be declared as null and void. In the aforesaid backdrop, a decree of possession was claimed qua the suit land. 3. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff, it had been averred that defendant No.1 was the driver of defendant No.2in the year 1994. Insofar as the plaintiff was concerned, he had no dealing with defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 was stated to be a stranger to the plaintiff. Insofar as defendant No.2 is concerned, he was 2 stated to be a member of the erstwhile royal family of Chamba and was stated to wield tremendous influence both in the States of Himachal and Punjab. 4. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.2 had implicated the plaintiff in false criminal cases in Pathankot (Punjab). The same had been foisted on the plaintiff with the sole intent to harass, humiliate him and his family. On account of these false cases, the plaintiff claimed that he had been in judicial custody for about 4/5 months during 1993. In all these cases, the plaintiff had been acquitted, however, in the process, he had lost his balance of mind and the power to think independently and as a result of which during the year 1993, the plaintiff alleged that he had been leading a life of utter despondency. 5. In the month of April, 1994, according to the plaintiff, a case under Section 420 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Panel Code was got registered at Police Station Sadar at Jalandhar. In the said case, the police had obtained non-bailable warrants against the plaintiff and his son. In pursuance to the aforesaid non-bailable warrants, the plaintiff and his son had been taken to Jalandhar, wherein as per the plaintiff, both were tortured in an inhuman manner. The police, it was alleged threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, if he did not dance to the tune of defendant No.2. On account of the pressure exerted on the plaintiff on 25th April, 1994, signatures of the plaintiff with the help 3 of the police were obtained over registers, blank stamp papers. After having obtained the aforesaid, the plaintiff and his son were permitted to leave the police station. 6. Thereafter the plaintiff averred in his plaint that the police, petition writer, marginal witnesses in cohorts with the defendant No.2, prepared the forged power of attorney in the case at hand. Forged power of attorney dated 25.04.1994 on the basis of which, a sale deed was made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 29.04.1994. Subsequent thereto, defendant No.2 had affected sales in favour of defendant No.4 and defendant No.3 on 23.01.1996 and 29.04.1995, respectively. The suit property in the case at hand includes a house wherein the plaintiff had stayed alongwith his adult daughter. The suit property is located outside Chamba Town. Immediately after release from police custody on 25.04.1994, the plaintiff shifted to his house located at Chamba Town. After registration of the sale deed, it has been averred in the plaint that defendant No.2 had taken forceful possession of the suit property. The forceful taking over of the suit property was not reported to the police as according to the plaintiff, defendant No.2 exercised tremendous clout in the area and based on past experience narrated hereinabove. The plaintiff desisted from filing a criminal complaint in this regard, however, it is averred that the plaintiff made a request to defendant No.2 to handover the possession of the suit 4 property, however, the result was yet another implication in a false criminal case, in which, the plaintiff was finally acquitted. Other than the aforesaid, it is alleged that two civil suits have also been filed by the defendant No.2 against the plaintiff. 7. Per contra, in a joint written statement filed to the plaint by defendants No. 2 and 1, it is categorically denied that the plaintiff had been falsely implicated by defendant No.2 in criminal cases at Pathankot (Punjab). The fact that in the year 1993, the plaintiff had lost his balance of mind and hence, he was not in a position to think correctly and was leading a life of utter despondency was categorically denied. It has further been categorically denied in the written statement so filed that defendant No.1 is the driver of defendant No.2 in the year 1994. He is stated not to be a stranger to the plaintiff. Other than the aforesaid, it is alleged that the plaintiff was running a business of money lending/borrowing in Chamba Town. From defendant No.2, he is alleged to have taken Rs.13 lacs. In this respect, two suits for recovery of about Rs.4 lacs have been filed by defendant No.2 against the plaintiff and were stated to be pending before the Court of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Chamba. Financial mismanagement was stated to be the cause of the misery of the plaintiff. The same resulted in non-payment of money taken by the plaintiff from various people in Chamba Town. 5 8. In the written statement filed, it was categorically denied that on 25.04.1994 at the behest of defendant No.2, signatures of the plaintiff were obtained with the help of the police over registers, blank papers. It has categorically been pleaded in the written statement that the general power of attorney made in favour of defendant No.1 by the plaintiff was made without exerting any undue pressure on the plaintiff, hence, is legal and valid. 9. The defendant No.2, it is categorically pleaded was a bona fide purchaser of the suit property on the basis of a legal, valid power of attorney made by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. After the sale, it has categorically been averred in the written statement that possession of the suit property was given to defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff. Further sales made to defendants No. 3 and 4 are admitted. Filing of cases for recovery against the plaintiff is admitted. 10. Defendants No. 3 and 4 had filed a separate written statement. In the written statement so filed, it is alleged that after taking reasonable care when it was ascertained that the property stood in the name of defendant No.2, it is only thereafter acting in good faith for consideration, they had purchased the suit property. Possession was handed over to them by defendant No.2. The property is stated to be situated within the municipal limits of Chamba Town and is stated to be situated on the main Chamba- 6 Bharmour Road. After having purchased the same, a huge amount of money has been spent by both the defendants in renovating the property. As per the said defendants, on account of the silence of the plaintiff for almost close to three years after the power of attorney is stated to have been executed, the plaintiff on account of conduct is estopped from laying a challenge to the sales made in favour of the present defendants. 11. As per the said defendants, sales made in their favour are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the aforesaid backdrop, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for the purposes of court fee and valuation? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action? OPD. 5. Whether defendant No.2 sold the house to defendant No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 29.4.95 for a consideration of rupees two lacs and the plaintiff is not bound by the illegal transaction? OPP 6. Whether the house was in possession of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 broke open the locks and took illegal possession of the house? OPP 7 7. Whether defendant No.2 took forcible possession in the year 1994 illegally over the land measuring 0-10 Biswas comprised of Khasra No.1428/877 and sold the same to defendant No.3 and handed over possession to defendant No. 3 and 47. OPP 8. Whether defendants No.3 and 4 were bonafide purchasers for consideration and without notice? If so, to what effect? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff acquised the improvements made by defendant No.4, as alleged? If so, to what effect? OPD 9-A Whether power of attorney purported to have been executed on 25.4.1994 registered on 26.4.1994 in favour of defendant No.1 by the plaintiff is a forged document and is the outcome of coercion and duress exercised by defendant No.2, as alleged? ….OPP 10. Relief. 12. Issue No.9-A was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No. 1 to 4 were not pressed. Issue Nos. 8 & 9 were decided in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4. Issue No.5 was partly allowed. In view of the aforesaid, the suit was dismissed. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the case at hand. Since issue No. 9-A was decided against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, cross objections laying challenge to the same have been preferred by defendants No. 1 & 2. In the aforesaid backdrop, issue No.9-A, as framed before the trial Court is taken up for consideration first. 8 14. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that from the evidence and documents placed on record, it is evident that a FIR under Section 420 read with Section 120 B IPC had in fact being lodged at Jalandhar. On the basis of which, non-bailable warrants had been issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction. In pursuance whereof, the plaintiff and his son had been arrested at Chamba and taken to Jalandhar. As per the learned senior counsel, the time of arrest of the plaintiff and his son, coincide with the execution of the power of attorney in the case at hand, as per learned senior counsel, sequence of events clearly suggests that the power of attorney which have been executed and registered at Jalandhar was done when the plaintiff had no necessity to go from Chamba to Jalandhar to execute a power of attorney in favour of Sunil Kumar i.e. defendant No.1 with whom he had no affinity/closeness. The purpose of executing power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 as per the learned senior counsel is absolutely obscure. According to the learned senior counsel, sale of the property immediately within one week of the execution of the power of attorney in the case at hand by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 especially when there was no requirement/urgency to sell the valuable property of the plaintiff at a through away price categorically points to the fact that the entire sequence of events in the case at hand had been got 9 orchestrated at the behest of defendant No.2. Signatures on the power of attorney are admitted, however, execution is being denied. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondnets/defendants submit that insofar as the power of attorney in the case at hand is concerned, in terms of Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, once it has been executed before a competent authority named in the aforesaid Section, then the execution and authentication of the power of attorney has to be presumed. As per the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendants No. 1 & 2 in terms of the Power of Attorney Act, while issuing a power of attorney, there is no requirement to mention as to why it is being granted in favour of a particular individual. Other than the aforesaid, it is contented by the learned counsel that the FIR registered in Jalandhar under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC in the month of April 1994 was not got registered at the behest of defendant No.3. Further the FIR so got registered at Jalandhar is unrelated to the subject matter i.e. suit property in the case at hand. 16. In the plaint at para 6, plaintiff has categorically averred that the FIR registered at Police Station, Sadar at Jalandhar under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC against the plaintiff and his son namely Neeraj Mahajan had been got registered in the month of April 1994 at the instance of 10 defendant No.3/defendant No.2. The record with respect to the FIR has been produced by PW-4 (Dayal Singh). Constable Dayal Singh is posted at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar. The FIR bearing No. 73 of 1994 is dated 20.4.1994. It was registered by ASI Dharampal. Investigation thereupon was done by SI Daulat Ram. The original document which is in Punjabi has been exhibited as Ext.PW4/A and its true typed translation has been exhibited as Ext.PW4/B. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the same has been registered at the behest of complainant named Jogender Singh. The allegations in the FIR pertain to duping of the complainant by the accused i.e. plaintiff and his son who it is alleged had promised to send the child of the complainant abroad and for the same, money had been taken from the complainant, however, the promise remained unfulfilled. Hence the FIR. Jogender Singh, the complainant has not been produced as a witness. The best evidence to corroborate/prove/establish the fact that the FIR registered at Police Station, Sadar at Jalandhar under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC against the plaintiff and his son, namely, Neeraj Mahajan had been got registered in the month of April 1994 at the instance of defendant No.2 has been withheld. An adverse inference in terms of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act needs to drawn against the plaintiff. 11 17. PW-3 i.e. Ved Prakash has brought the record from the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jalandhar pertaining to FIR in the case at hand i.e. Ext.PW-4/B (true typed translated copy). As per the record produced by the said witness, a non- bailable warrants had been issued by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jalandhar against the plaintiff and his son. The non-bailable warrants had been issued for 3.5.1994. As per the record produced, the two accused were never produced in the Court nor a challan was produced before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate with respect to FIR Ext.PW4/B. 18. PW-2 Mohinder MHC, Police Station, Chamba has placed on record “Rapat Roznamcha” Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW2/B. From the same, it is evident that SI Daulat Ram, Additional SHO, Police Station, Jalandhar in pursuance to the non-bailable warrants issued by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar had come to arrest the two accused. After arresting the two accused, the aforesaid Additional SHO, Police Station, Jalandhar had returned for producing the accused before the competent Court. PW-5 Darshan Singh, ASI who brought the file pertaining to FIR Ext.PW4/B. From the same, the said witness deposed that the two accused were never produced before any Magistrate. SI Daulat Ram, who had conducted the Investigation is stated to have died. In cross examination, he 12 submits that the FIR in the case at hand, Ext.PW4/B had been filed as untraced. 19. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is clearly evident that insofar as the registration of FIR Ext.PW4/B is concerned, the defendant No.2 had no role to play in the same. Even during investigation, nothing has been attributed to the defendant No.2. While appearing as PW-1, the plaintiff in the case at hand in his examination-in-chief makes out a totally new case, which is not being pleaded. In his deposition, he submits that on 25.4.1994, defendant No.2 and his wife had come to the Police Station, Jalandhar and had obtained signatures on certain blank stamped papers and blank white papers on which stamp had been affixed. 20. Besides the aforesaid, he further deposed that on 26.4.1994, on a register his signatures had been obtained and it was on the basis of the same, a power of attorney was prepared. When defendant No.2 had appeared as a witness i.e. DW4 conspicuous by absence is a cross examination with respect to the fact that defendant No.2 was connected with Jogender Singh i.e. complainant at whose behest Ext.PW-4/B (FIR) was registered. Besides no evidence has been placed on record by the plaintiff showing a connection between the defendant No.2 and Jogender Singh i.e. complainant at whose behest Ext.PW- 4/B (FIR) was registered. 13 21. The original power of attorney has been placed on record as Ext.DW-9/A, the same is duly signed by the plaintiff and all other concerned. Thereafter, the same was presented for registration. The document has been duly registered. Presumption of regularity exists with the duly registered power of attorney. Registration of the power of attorney belies any foul play in the making of the same. In order to rebut the presumption attached with the power of attorney neither the scribe nor the attesting witnesses or the registering authority have been produced by the plaintiff. 22. Insofar as the power of Ext.PW-9/A is concerned, the scribe (document writer since 1973), who had penned the same has been produced in evidence as DW-9 by the defendants. In his Examination-in-Chief, he submits that the power of attorney had been penned down on behalf of the plaintiff. After scribing the same, the power of attorney, so prepared, was readover to the plaintiff, who signed the same. Thereafter signatures of the witnesses thereupon were appended. The document prepared was entered in his register. The same was also signed by the plaintiff. In his cross examination, conspicuous by absence is a cross examination with respect to the fact that the documents Ext.DW9/A prepared by the said witness were pre-signed blank papers of the plaintiff and thereupon the contents of the power of attorney were typed. 14 23. Even with respect to the fact that the register of the said witness (document writer) had been taken elsewhere for getting the signatures of the plaintiff, nothing has been elicited from the said witness nor in cross examination his testimony to the effect that the same had been signed by the concerned individuals has been shattered. The power of attorney has been made in favour of defendant No.1, who has appeared as DW-5 and in his deposition he has categorically stated that the deed was executed by the plaintiff without any force of coercion. In his cross examination, he categorically submits that on 22.4.1994, the plaintiff alongwith his son had travelled in the vehicle (taxi) which was driven by the defendant No.1 (DW-5). The witness to the power of attorney Subhash Raj had met the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff at Football Chowk Jalandhar. He had identified the plaintiff. The witness to the power of attorney i.e. Subhash Raj had appeared as DW-6. In his deposition, he had submitted that the power of attorney had been executed without any undue influence/coercion and at the time of registration of the power of attorney, the plaintiff was not in police custody. In cross examination, nothing has been elicited from the said witness to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff. 24. As per the Power of Attorney Act 1882, no reason is to be assigned in the same as to the making of the power of attorney. There is no compulsion under the said Act as to the 15 place at which the power of attorney has to be got prepared, registered. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. The same is not compulsorily registerable. 25. A Power of attorney has been elaborated upon by the apex court in case reported as State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77, at page 90 as follows : “13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. 14. Besides the Contract Act, the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 deals with the subject. Section 1-A of the Powers-of-Attorney Act defines power of attorney to include any instruments empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it. Section 2 of the said Act reads, thus: “2. Execution under power of attorney.—The donee of a power of attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof. This section applies to powers of attorney created by instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into force.” 16 Execution of a deed of power of attorney, therefore, is valid in law and subject to the provisions of the Act is not compulsorily registerable.” 26. Insofar as the registration of a document and the three essential steps with respect to the same are concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to case reported as Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham, (2022) 8 SCC 210, relevant extracts whereof read as under; “53. Actually, the registration of a document comprises of three essential steps among others. They are: (i) execution of the document, by the executant signing or affixing his left hand thumb impression; (ii) presenting the document for registration and admitting to the registering authority the execution of such document; and (iii) the act of registration of the document. 54. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without the relief of declaration that the registered document is null and void, what gets challenged, is a combination of all the aforesaid three steps in the process of execution and registration. The first of the aforesaid three steps may be challenged in a suit for declaration that the registered document is null and void, either on the ground that the executant did not have a valid title to pass on or on the ground that what was found in the document was not the signature of the executant or on the ground that the signature of the executant was obtained by fraud, coercion, etc. The second step of presentation of the document and admitting the execution of the same, may also be challenged on the very same grounds hereinabove stated. Such objections to the first and second of the aforesaid three steps are substantial and they strike at the very root of creation of the document. A challenge to the very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any 17 defect or illegality on the execution, is congenital in nature. Therefore, such a challenge, by its very nature, has to be made only before the civil court and certainly not before the writ court. 55. The third step, namely, the act of registration, is something that the registering authority is called upon to do statutorily. While the executant of the document and the person claiming under the document (claimant) are the only actors involved in the first two steps, the registering officer is the actor in the third step. Apart from the third step which is wholly in the domain of the registering authority, he may also have a role to play in the second step when a document is presented for registration and the execution thereof is admitted. The role that is assigned to the Registrar in the second step is that of verification of the identity of the person presenting the document for registration. 56. Thus, the first two steps in the process of registration are substantial in nature, with the parties to the document playing the role of the lead actors and the registering authority playing a guest role in the second step. The third step is procedural in nature where the registering authority is the lead actor. 57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a registered document is null and void, all the aforesaid three steps which comprise the entire process of execution and registration come under challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a document or the right and title of a person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy will only be to go to the civil court.” 27. The power of attorney in the case at hand is registered. One is, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by the apex Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal 18 2006(5) SCC 353. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below : (SCC pp. 360-61, para 27) “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, defendant 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” (emphasis supplied) In view thereof, in the present case, the initial onus was on the appellant/plaintiff, who had challenged the said registered document.” 28. Qua procedure prescribed for proof of execution of document concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to case reported as Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill, (2021) 15 SCC 300, at page 321 : 34. Be that as it may, before examining whether the plaintiff discharged that onus and thus shifted it on the defendants, one may take note of procedure prescribed for proof of execution of document. In this regard, reference to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the 1872 Act”) is imperative. The same is reproduced hereunder: “68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.—If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been 19 registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” (emphasis supplied) 29. In the case at hand signatures on the power of attorney are admitted. However the obtaining of the signatures and preparing of the power of attorney are stated to be a result of a coercion. At the time of registering the document the registering authority is at this stage required to verify the identity of the plaintiff/executant of the document. The registering authority has not been produced in evidence by the plaintiff. Herein again an adverse inference in terms of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act needs to drawn against the plaintiff. 30. Besides the aforesaid, qua the alleged torture/tormenting done by the Punjab Police in the case at hand, no complaint qua the same was ever made by the plaintiff to any authority. It is difficult to fathom as to why no complaint in this regard was ever made to any competent authority by the plaintiff. Reasons cited qua not making a complaint being that on prior occasions when the plaintiff had issues with defendant No.2, coercive action had been taken by the latter and therefore, plaintiff desisted from making any complaint. The absence of any proof to this extent makes the aforesaid reason highly flimsy and liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, an attempt has been made 20 to show that when the plaintiff was brought back from Jalandhar in April, 1994, he had been brought back by the Himachal Police and had been taken to the house of defendant No.2 at Jandarighat, wherein he had been kept in custody. To this extent, attention has been invited to a previous statement recorded of defendant No.2. A perusal of Ext. DW4/C, relevant extract A to A, reveals that a suggestion had been made to defendant No.2 to the aforesaid extent and the same had been denied by the said defendant No.2. It is a common practice to suggest to a witness while he or she is under cross-examination. However I am of the opinion that in civil cases which are based on pleadings, there is no need for suggestions to be given. The practice of giving suggestions in cross examination to witnesses is of criminal trials where there are no pleadings and the defence is built up by giving such suggestions. Suggestions put are no evidence at all and on the basis of such suggestions, no interference can be drawn. 31. Other than the aforesaid, from a perusal of the cross examination of the plaintiff, it is evident that suits for recovery to the tune of approximately Rs.4 lacs inter se the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were pending adjudication before the concerned Civil Court at Chamba. The stoic silence of the plaintiff till the filing of the present suit on 22.4.1997 and non-rectification of the revenue record which depicted the defendant No.2 as the owner 21 in possession of the suit property further negatives the claim/plea being raised by the plaintiff. 32. In view of the aforesaid, it can be safely concluded that the presumption of valid execution qua the power of attorney in the case at hand has not been rebutted, therefore, I hold the power of attorney in the case at hand to be a valid legal document executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. 33. Insofar as taking over of possession of the house in question is concerned, in para 11 of the plaint, it has specifically been pleaded that subsequent to the execution of the sale deed in his favour, defendant No.2 had broken open the locks of the house and had taken over possession of the same alongwith the possession of the land. As per the averments made in the said para of the plaint, the plaintiffs became aware of the same in the year 1994, however, no action against taking over of possession was initiated by the plaintiff. As based on his past experience with defendant No. 2, he did not initiate any action as previously on taking cudgels with defendant No.2, the plaintiff as per averments made in the said paragraph of the plaint had been tormented and harassed by the police. Insofar as the averments contained in para 11 of the plaint are concerned, there is no evidence led by the plaintiff to establishing the truth of the allegations made in the said paragraph. To the contrary, revenue record entries show the ownership and possession of defendant 22 No.4. In his cross examination, he has categorically stated that since April, 1994 after his return from Jalandhar, he has been living in Chamba town and he never visited the house, land which was sold to defendant No.2 in the case at hand in April 1994. 34. Insofar as further sales made to defendants No. 3 and 4 are concerned by defendant No.2, there is no dispute inter se the parties to the sale. Defendant No. 4 had appeared in the witness box as DW-7 and has categorically stated that he had purchased the house in dispute for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- vide registered sale deed Ext.DW-4/B. He further stated that the house was shown to him by Ashwani Sharma, Manager of defendant No.2, who had the keys of the house and possession was handed over to him after opening the locks. 35. Both defendants No. 3 and 4 had appeared as DW-1 and DW-7 respectively. In their respective statements (examination-in-chief), they had submitted that before making the purchase, they had contacted the concerned Patwari alongwith Ashwani Sharma, Manager of defendant No.3. They had satisfied themselves qua the ownership of defendant No.2. Consideration of the sale deeds made by defendants No. 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.2 has been proved on record by both these witnesses. Possession was obtained by them of the respective suit property from defendant No.2 through his Manager. Defendant No.4 while deposing his DW-7 has categorically stated 23 qua the works done in the incomplete house that he had purchased. Amounts spent has also been specified. To the aforesaid extent, there has been no cross examination by the plaintiffs/appellants thereby admitting the same. 36. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, appeal preferred by the appellants stands dismissed and for the reasons mentioned while considering Issue No. 9-A, Cross Objections bearing No.119 of 2001 are allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 5th June, 2025 vs/tarun 24