Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1759 (PNJ)

Nirmal Gill v. Rattan Singh

2019-05-27

LISA GILL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Lisa Gill, J. This judgment shall dispose of RSA Nos. 2901 and 3881 of 2012. 2. RSA Nos. 2901 and 3881 of 2012 are taken up together for hearing and disposal as both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 03.01.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur vide which both Civil Suit Nos. 11 of 2001 and 173 of 2002 filed by the plaintiff Joginder Kaur were dismissed, as well as judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court - I, Hoshiarpur, wherein appeals filed by the plaintiff were dismissed. 3. Civil Suit No. 11 of 2001 was filed by Joginder Kaur seeking declaration to the effect that sale deeds dated 03.07.2000 and 29.06.1990 are illegal, null, void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff. Furthermore, declaration to the effect that the General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 was obtained by Harcharan Kaur-defendant No. 1 in the said suit in connivance with her husband Rattan Singh and that the plaintiff was not bound by the same or any other transaction purportedly carried out on the basis of the said General Power of Attorney. The plaintiff also sought declaration to the effect that she was the owner in possession of the land measuring 9 marlas out of 4 kanal 13 marlas detailed in the suit. Defendant-Harcharan Kaur was sought to be restrained from effecting or transferring the land in dispute in any manner on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990. 4. In Civil Suit No. 173 of 2002, plaintiff-Joginder Kaur sought a declaration to the effect that the following sale deeds allegedly executed on her behalf by her alleged attorney are null, void and not binding qua her rights:- (i) Sale deed and mutation No. 11395 in respect to land measuring 1 kanal 6-1/2 marlas as detailed in the plaint. (ii) Sale deed dated 03.07.1990 in respect to land measuring 34 kanal 5 marlas as detailed. (iii) Sale deed dated 20.05.1996 registered on 22.05.1996 in respect to land measuring 2 kanal 10 marlas as detailed. (iv) Sale deed dated 18.03.1996 executed by Harcharan Kaur in favour of Inder Pal Singh. (v) Sale deed dated 18.03.1996 executed by Harcharan Kaur in favour of Rajinder Kaur wife of Inder Pal Singh. 5. (iii) Sale deed dated 20.05.1996 registered on 22.05.1996 in respect to land measuring 2 kanal 10 marlas as detailed. (iv) Sale deed dated 18.03.1996 executed by Harcharan Kaur in favour of Inder Pal Singh. (v) Sale deed dated 18.03.1996 executed by Harcharan Kaur in favour of Rajinder Kaur wife of Inder Pal Singh. 5. Brief facts of the case are that Harbans Singh, father of the plaintiff, was the owner of land in Nawashahr, Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur. Harbans Singh had solemnised two marriages. Plaintiff-Joginder Kaur was born out of the wedlock between Harbans Singh and Gurbachan Kaur. Harbans Singh after the death of Gurbachan Kaur married Piar Kaur. Gurdial Singh, Rattan Singh, Narinder Pal Singh and Surjit Singh (arrayed as defendants) were born out the second marriage of Harbans Singh. Harcharan Kaur (defendant) is the wife of Rattan Singh i.e. sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the plaintiff. Harbans Singh died in the year 1963. As per the averments in the plaint in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2001, the plaintiff claimed herself to be an old lady. It is pleaded that she had cordial relations with her brothers (defendants No. 3 to 6) as well as her sister-in-law Harcharan Kaur and she often used to visit them at the village; After the death of Harbans Singh, his estate devolved in equal shares on six persons i.e. the plaintiff, her four step brothers and her step mother. It is alleged that as Gurdial Singh and Rattan Singh did not have any other source of income, the plaintiff allowed them to retain possession of the estate of Harbans Singh. Narinder Pal Singh and Surjit Singh were government employees, not living in the village. The plaintiff, it is stated, was settled in New Delhi with her husband in her matrimonial home. It is further pleaded that as the plaintiff was not dependant on her inheritance, she permitted Gurdial Singh and Rattan Singh to continue looking after the suit property while making it known to them that she had not relinquished her share in the property. Gurdial Singh - respondent, in June, 1990 approached the plaintiff by saying that as Narinder Pal Singh and Surjit Singh had retired, they were asking for their share of the property, therefore, it was decided to get the suit property partitioned as per their respective shares and estate could be mutated accordingly. Gurdial Singh - respondent, in June, 1990 approached the plaintiff by saying that as Narinder Pal Singh and Surjit Singh had retired, they were asking for their share of the property, therefore, it was decided to get the suit property partitioned as per their respective shares and estate could be mutated accordingly. Plaintiff was allegedly called to village Kalyanpur for this purpose. She is stated to have appended her signatures on blank papers. She did not question the bonafides of her step brothers as she had reposed implicit trust in them. When she inquired about the mutation proceedings, she was told that as some part of the property was in illegal possession of encroachers, mutation could not be sanctioned till the encroachments were removed. 6. It is pleaded that in the year 1999, the plaintiff's husband retired, on which she shifted to Punjab and as a natural consequence thereof, she had more interaction with her relatives in Punjab. At the wedding of her real paternal uncle's (Taya) son Rustam Singh, it came to light that the plaintiff's step brother had sold a portion of the joint land. Rustam Singh in the course of conservation mentioned that he alongwith his siblings had sold their joint land in Hoshiarpur and reference was also made to sale of a portion of the plaintiff's joint land with her step brothers. Perturbed thereby, the plaintiff started making inquiries. On verification from the revenue records, it came to light that Gurdial Singh had got the plaintiff's father's (Harbans Singh) estate mutated in their joint name in November, 1963 itself. Furthermore, the respondents had been mortgaging the land on various occasions with the bank without her knowledge or consent. The plaintiff then came to know that a power of attorney dated 08.10.1963 (Ex. D19) purportedly executed by the plaintiff, in favour of her step brother Gurdial Singh, was also set up by them. Another Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 (Ex. PW 4/A) was allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of Harcharan Kaur (bhabhi of the plaintiff), wife of Rattan Singh (plaintiff's step brother). Sale deed dated 29.06.1990 was allegedly executed by the plaintiff herself in favour of both Gurdial Singh and Rattan Singh besides sale deed dated 03.07.1990. It is alleged that the defendants had played a fraud upon the plaintiff. Sale deed dated 29.06.1990 was allegedly executed by the plaintiff herself in favour of both Gurdial Singh and Rattan Singh besides sale deed dated 03.07.1990. It is alleged that the defendants had played a fraud upon the plaintiff. She asked them to admit her claim but on their refusal, Suit No. 11 titled 'Joginder Kaur v. Harcharan Kaur and others' was filed. The plaintiff thereafter came to know that five sale deeds were illegally executed by Harcharan Kaur (defendant) on the basis of the alleged Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990. Accordingly, the second Suit No.173 titled 'Joginder Kaur v. Rattan Singh and others' was filed. 7. It is alleged that the plaintiff at no point of time had given any power of attorney to the defendant - Harcharan Kaur (wife of Rattan Singh), therefore, any sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur in the capacity of the plaintiff's power of attorney are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff denied ever having executed sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 in favour of Gurdial Singh and Rattan Singh. It is claimed that her signatures on the sale sale deeds are forged and fictitious. Some blank papers had been got signed from the plaintiff in good faith and may even have been misused. Plaintiff's step brothers were stated to be in a dominant position firstly because of their relationship. Moreover, Rattan Singh was also the Sarpanch of the village. Furthermore, the consideration amount had never been handed over to the plaintiff which proves the fraudulent nature of the said instruments. 8. The defendants - step brothers of the plaintiff, her sister and vendees of two sale deeds dated 18.03.2006 namely Inderpal Singh and his wife Rajinder Kaur opposed the suits. Vendees of the other sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur in her capacity as the plaintiff's power of attorney, did not come forward to contest the matter. Written statements were filed in both the suits by the aforementioned and various preliminary objections were raised. Relationship between the parties, however, stands admitted. It is stated that the plaintiff herself had executed the registered power of attorney dated 28.06.1990 in favour of Harcharan Kaur out of her own free will. Sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 were ' duly executed out of her own free will and volition. Relationship between the parties, however, stands admitted. It is stated that the plaintiff herself had executed the registered power of attorney dated 28.06.1990 in favour of Harcharan Kaur out of her own free will. Sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 were ' duly executed out of her own free will and volition. Sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the plaintiff were validly executed for valuable consideration. It is further stated that sale consideration received from the vendee was duly received by the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the General Power of Attorney and the sale deeds in the year 2001. Defendants - Inder Pal Singh and Rajinder Kaur (wife of Inder Pal Singh) claimed to be bona fide purchasers for consideration, without any notice of the dispute between the plaintiff and her power of attorney holder Harcharan Kaur. Sale consideration, it is stated, was paid by the said defendants through 12 demand drafts of Rs. 61,000/- each in favour of defendants Rattan Singh and Gurdial Singh, Surjit Singh and Harcharan Kaur. They further claimed to have spent considerable amount on the said plot having raised construction thereon, therefore, both sale deeds dated 18.03.1996 are legal, valid instruments and cannot be set aside. Dismissal of both the suits was prayed for. 9. Replication was filed in both the suits. 10. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2001 on the basis of the pleading:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 4. Relief. 11. Issues framed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 173 of 2002 on the basis of the pleading read as under:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deeds alleged by the plaintiff are null and void? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession as alternative relief as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPP 6. Relief. 12. OPP. 2. Whether the sale deeds alleged by the plaintiff are null and void? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession as alternative relief as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPP 6. Relief. 12. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court on 03.08.2005 and it was ordered that evidence be recorded in Civil Suit No.11 of 2001 (Joginder Kaur v. Harcharan Kaur). 13. Evidence was led by both the parties to prove their respective stands/claims. 14. Learned trial Court observed that main dispute is regarding the execution of General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 registered on 29.06.1990 by the plaintiff in favour of Harcharan Kaur and whether the plaintiff executed registered sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 and whether the subsequent sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur, in the capacity of the plaintiff's power of attorney holder, are binding upon the plaintiff. 15. Learned trial Court on considering the evidence on record dismissed both the suits filed by the plaintiff while observing that the plaintiff was an educated lady having obtained her Bachelors Degree in Arts and it was not possible that she had signed blank papers at the asking of any person. Learned trial Court concluded that the Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 was duly proved on record besides sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 to have been executed by the plaintiff herself. Therefore, the sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur as power of attorney holder of the plaintiff were also valid and binding on the plaintiff. Appeals preferred by the appellant - plaintiffs were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court - I, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeals have been filed. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur died during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge and her daughter - Ms. Nirmal Gill was impleaded. Aggrieved from the dismissal of her suits as well as appeals, present appeals have been filed by Ms. Nirmal Gill. 16. It is vehemently argued by Ms. Nirmal Gill, appearing in person, that fraud committed by the step brothers of the plaintiff is writ large and is apparent from the evidence on record. Nirmal Gill was impleaded. Aggrieved from the dismissal of her suits as well as appeals, present appeals have been filed by Ms. Nirmal Gill. 16. It is vehemently argued by Ms. Nirmal Gill, appearing in person, that fraud committed by the step brothers of the plaintiff is writ large and is apparent from the evidence on record. It is submitted that there is gross misreading of evidence by both the learned courts below. The appellant argues that the plaintiff had reposed implicit trust in her step brothers. After the death of their father in 1963, property of their father Harbans Singh had devolved upon the plaintiff alongwith her four step brothers and her step mother in equal shares. She had maintained cordial relations with her step brothers. The plaintiff at no point of time was made to feel that she was a step sister. It is only after her husband's retirement when she started interacting with her relatives in Punjab on a more regular basis that she came to know at the wedding of her cousin brother (Taya's son) that her step brothers had been selling part of the joint property. It is submitted that DW 6 Rattan Singh has admitted the factum of the wedding of Rustam Singh's son in February, 2001. Presence of the present plaintiff is also admitted. This fact is corroborated by the evidence of DW 3 Anoop Singh as well as DW 2 Kultar Singh. It is thereafter when inquiries were made that the plaintiff came to know regarding the execution of the alleged General Power of Attorney as well as two sale deeds purportedly executed by the plaintiff herself. The first suit was filed by the plaintiff. The second suit was filed when the plaintiff found out about the other sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur acting as the plaintiff's General Power of Attorney holder. 17. It is submitted that there was no occasion for execution of the said power of attorney dated 28.06.1990 when admittedly the appellant used to visit her paternal home on a regular basis, which is a fact admitted by the defendants. Fraud, it is submitted, is writ large on the face of it. Firstly, the defendants created the General Power of Attorney of 1963 and then of 1990. Fraud, it is submitted, is writ large on the face of it. Firstly, the defendants created the General Power of Attorney of 1963 and then of 1990. Even if their case is accepted to be correct, it does not stand to reason that once having executed a power of attorney dated 08.10.1963 she would again execute another subsequent power of attorney and that too in favour of Harcharan Kaur wife of Rattan Singh. The timing of the subsequent power of attorney in 1990 alongwith the two sale deeds in quick succession, besides the other sale deeds by Harcharan Kaur in a span of about five/six years, clearly points to the fraudulent nature of the transactions. Moreover, the reason mentioned in the subsequent power of attorney is clearly untenable inasmuch as, it is stated, that the plaintiff being a lady is unable to look after the affairs of her estate. In such a situation, it is not possible that the plaintiff would have executed a power of attorney in favour of none other, but another woman. Furthermore, the address given in the General Power of Attorney is incorrect, which reflects the falsity of the document inasmuch as, if anyone had even wanted to contact the plaintiff, it would not have been possible. 18. It is further submitted that the deed writer PW 4 Balkar Singh was summoned by the plaintiff only with a view to prove the entries in his register. As the name of the scribe was mentioned in the disputed documents bearing serial Nos. 388 and 390, the plaintiff had sought him out to prove the entries and he was not known to her. However, the said witness connived with the other party and stated that he knew the plaintiff. The appellant has levelled specific allegations of collusion of PW 4 with the defendants while submitting that the plaintiff had summoned PW 4 for the sole purpose of producing his record on the file. The deed writer was permitted to be cross examined for three times at the behest of the defendants i.e. on 03.08.2005, 11.08.2006 and 11.04.2007. PW 4 was not declared hostile due to reasons best known to the plaintiff's counsel. It is claimed that injustice has been perpetuated upon the plaintiff. The entries in the scribe's register, it is submitted, again point to the falsity of the said documents. PW 4 was not declared hostile due to reasons best known to the plaintiff's counsel. It is claimed that injustice has been perpetuated upon the plaintiff. The entries in the scribe's register, it is submitted, again point to the falsity of the said documents. Sale deed dated 29.06.1990 in favour of Rattan Singh and Gurdial Singh is mentioned at serial No. 388. A special Power of Attorney in favour of Harcharan Kaur is reflected at serial No. 389 whereas a General Power of Attorney in respect of plaintiff's share at various places in favour of Harcharan Kaur is entered at serial No. 390. It is contended that it is beyond comprehension, as to why the land would first be sold to the plaintiff's step brother by her and thereafter a power of attorney executed in favour of Harcharan Kaur wife of Rattan Singh. The date on which the general power of attorney was actually scribed was changed by writing 28 to project that the power of attorney was created on 28.06.1990 i.e. prior to the sale deed dated 29.06.1990. The special power of attorney so entered in the register of PW 4 was never produced before the court nor was a copy thereof found in Sub Registrar's records and it defies reason as to for what purpose it was created. 19. It is further submitted that the original power of attorney was not produced on record at the outset by the defendants. It is after the plaintiff had led her evidence and it was closed on 22.08.2006 that the defendants after another six months i.e. on 22.02.2007 placed on record the original documents. The hand writing expert was examined by them to compare the disputed signatures on the photocopy of the General Power of Attorney. It is argued that the defendants, on the other hand, contested the plaintiff's prayer for examination of hand writing expert tooth and nail at the stage when they produced the original documents. The plaintiff's application for examination of hand writing expert was allowed by the learned trial Court. It is only after the revision petition filed by the defendants was dismissed by this Court on 23.01.2008, that the plaintiff was able to examine the hand writing expert Jassy Anand (PW 10), who specifically opined that the documents are the result of copied forgery. 20. Ms. It is only after the revision petition filed by the defendants was dismissed by this Court on 23.01.2008, that the plaintiff was able to examine the hand writing expert Jassy Anand (PW 10), who specifically opined that the documents are the result of copied forgery. 20. Ms. Nirmal Gill states that the so called admission of the plaintiff referred to by the learned courts below, of the plaintiff's signatures on blank papers, is merely a submission. Not much weight can be attached to the same as it is duly explained by the plaintiff that such a submission/admission was made under a mistaken belief. No opportunity was afforded to withdraw the same as the respondents did not produce the original documents on record till the closure of the plaintiff's evidence. It is vehemently argued that present is a case where the plaintiff has been duped at the hands of none others but her own step brothers in whom she had reposed complete trust and could have never imagined such kind of fraud at their hands. The following substantial questions of law have been framed by the appellant in the grounds of appeal:- (1) Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are sustainable in view of the fact that the question of fraud was apparent? (2) Whether the findings of the learned courts below are in accordance with the settled provisions of law and the questions of law and the question of fraud and limitation had been wrongly decided by the courts below? 21. It is, thus, prayed that these appeals be allowed, impugned judgment and decree dated 03.01.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur as well as judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court - I, Hoshiarpur, be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff - Joginder Kaur be decreed throughout. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, refutes the averments raised by the appellant. It is stated that these appeals are not maintainable by the appellant-Nirmal Gill. The documents in question were duly executed by the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur herself. General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 was duly executed by the appellant in favour of Harcharan Kaur wife of Rattan Singh. Sale deeds dated 03.07.1990 (Ex. PW 3/D) and 29.06.1990 (Ex. PW 3/B) are proved to have been executed by Joginder Kaur herself. The documents in question were duly executed by the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur herself. General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 was duly executed by the appellant in favour of Harcharan Kaur wife of Rattan Singh. Sale deeds dated 03.07.1990 (Ex. PW 3/D) and 29.06.1990 (Ex. PW 3/B) are proved to have been executed by Joginder Kaur herself. The appellant's own witness Balkar Singh, PW 4, the scribe has duly testified that he knew Joginder Kaur and she had executed the General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 and the two sale deeds out of her own free will and volition. The discrepancy in the entries of the register of the scribe PW 4 Balkar Singh does not in any manner shatter the credibility of the defendants' case. It is submitted that sale deeds 03.07.1990 and 29.06.1990 were executed for valuable consideration, which was duly received by the plaintiff - Joginder Kaur. It is a matter of record that Joginder Kaur used to visit village Kalyanpur and stayed with the defendants in an amicable manner, so there was no question of her not being aware of the execution of the sale deeds. The other sale deeds have been validly executed by Harcharan Kaur in her capacity of General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff. The consideration amount in the said sale deeds was duly handed over to the plaintiff Rs. 5 lakhs was handed over to the son of the plaintiff by way of demand drafts. Therefore, the said sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur on the basis of the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff, which was never revoked, are valid and genuine sale deeds, which should be upheld. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was aware of all the transactions since they were executed. There is no proof of the appellant coming to know of the transactions only at a marriage party in February, 2001 as pleaded. Therefore, the suit is beyond the period of limitation. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that in terms of Section 24 of the Transfer of Property Act, the question of sale consideration in any case loses significance as due execution of the sale deeds is proved on record. There is no evidence of any impersonation as pleaded by the appellant. Furthermore, the defendants had to face the brunt of false criminal proceedings in which they were all found innocent. There is no evidence of any impersonation as pleaded by the appellant. Furthermore, the defendants had to face the brunt of false criminal proceedings in which they were all found innocent. Moreover, the ground of fraud and misrepresentation has not been pleaded in terms of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC or proved in any manner. It is, thus, prayed that the present appeals be dismissed and impugned judgment and decree dated 03.01.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur as well as judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court - I, Hoshiarpur, be upheld. 24. I have heard Ms. Nirmal Gill in person and learned counsel for the respondents at length and have gone through the record with their assistance. 25. Plaintiff-Joginder Kaur first filed Civil Suit No. 11 of 2011 seeking declaration to the effect that General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 has been obtained by defendant -Harcharan Kaur in connivance with her husband Rattan Singh and is a result of fraud and the plaintiff is not bound by the same. She further prayed for a declaration that the two sale deeds as mentioned in the foregoing paras are illegal, null, void and obtained in a fraudulent manner and are ineffective qua her rights. Thereafter, the second suit was instituted by Joginder Kaur on 12.06.2002 for setting aside of sale deeds as detailed in the foregoing paras while claiming that she subsequently came to know of the execution of these sale deeds by Harcharan Kaur in the capacity of her power of attorney holder and that the said sale deeds have been executed in a fraudulent manner and have no binding effect on her rights. 26. Plaintiff-Joginder Kaur has laid the foundation of her case on the ground that her four step brothers were in a dominant position and they alongwith Harcharan Kaur wife of Rattan Singh in a devious manner duped her of her property on the basis of the purported General Power of Attorney. This Power of Attorney and sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 were never executed by her. Therefore, subsequent sale deeds executed by her alleged Power of Attorney holder are illegal too. 27. This Power of Attorney and sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 were never executed by her. Therefore, subsequent sale deeds executed by her alleged Power of Attorney holder are illegal too. 27. It is an admitted case that after the death of Harbans Singh in 1963, his property devolved upon Joginder Kaur and her four step brothers as well as her step mother i.e. the estate devolved in equal shares upon six persons. The Plaintiff was admittedly settled in New Delhi with her husband in her matrimonial home. It is further apparent from a perusal of the record as well as statements of Rattan Singh (DW 6) and Gurdial Singh (DW 5) that the plaintiff - Joginder Kaur was on visiting terms with them and had cordial relations. Plaintiff would often stay with her step brothers. Learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that she has failed to prove that the General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 is a result of any fraud. It is observed by the learned trial Court as well as learned First Appellate court that execution of the said power of attorney is proved. Reference is made to the testimony of Balkar Singh (PW 4), the scribe of the said power of attorney. It is observed that fraud has not been proved in terms of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC. Reference is also made to the statement of DW 8 Arvind Sood, Handwriting and Finger Print expert examined by the defendants. It is conclusively held that Joginder Kaur had herself executed the said power of attorney out of her own free will and volition and that the discrepancy in the entries in the scribe's register is of no relevance and does not prove fraud. Moreover, mention of the wrong address of the plaintiff in the General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 also does not lead to any kind of conclusion regarding fraud being played upon the plaintiff. 28. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh B. Desai and others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others, 2006 (5) SCC 638 , wherein it has been observed as under:- "Undoubtedly, Order 6 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code requires that complete particulars of fraud shall be stated in the pleadings. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh B. Desai and others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others, 2006 (5) SCC 638 , wherein it has been observed as under:- "Undoubtedly, Order 6 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code requires that complete particulars of fraud shall be stated in the pleadings. The particulars of alleged fraud, which are required to be stated in the plaint, will depend upon the facts of each particular case and no abstract principle can be laid down in this regard. (Emphasis added). Where some transaction of money takes place to which 'A', 'B' and 'C are parties and payment is made by cheques, in normal circumstances a third party 'X' may not get knowledge of the said transaction unless he is informed about it by someone who has knowledge of the transaction or he gets an opportunity to see the accounts of the concerned parties in the Bank. In such a case an assertion by 'X' that he got no knowledge of the transaction when it took place and that he came to know about it subsequently through some proceedings in court cannot be said to be insufficient pleading for the purpose of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC. In such a case 'X' can only plead that he got no knowledge of the transaction and nothing more. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error in holding that there was no proper pleading of fraud." 29. In Ramesh Kumar and another v. Furu Ram and another, 2011 (8) SCC 613 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that- "Fraud can be of different forms and different hues. It is difficult to define it with precision, as the shape of each fraud depends upon the fertile imagination and cleverness who conceives of and perpetrates the fraud. Its ingredients are an intention to deceive, use of unfair means, deliberate concealment of material facts, or abuse of position of confidence. 'Fraud' is 'knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his detriment'. 'Fraud' is also defined as a concealment or false representation through a statement or conduct that injures another who relies on it in acting. (vide The Black's Law Dictionary). 'Fraud' is 'knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his detriment'. 'Fraud' is also defined as a concealment or false representation through a statement or conduct that injures another who relies on it in acting. (vide The Black's Law Dictionary). Any conduct involving deceit resulting in injury, loss or damage to some one is fraud." 30. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court is to draw proper inferences from the evidence on record. It has been held by this Court in Biru v. Nanhi, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 810, that when a person is in a dominant position, the burden of proof would be on such person to show that there was absence of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. It has been observed that fraud by its nature is secret in its origin and inception and the means adopted for its success and fraudulent motive or design cannot be proved to the very hilt and it would be inferred from the circumstances placed before the court. Each circumstance in itself may not mean much but put together, they may reveal a fraudulent or dishonest plan. In Biru's case (supra), the appellant therein was sought to be defrauded by his own relatives including his wife. 31. In the present case, it is relevant to note that the General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 contains a recital that it is being executed by the plaintiff as she is unable to look after the affairs regarding the land being a woman. In such a situation, it is opposed to all probabilities and common sense that the General Power of Attorney would have been executed in favour of another woman Harcharan Kaur, who is none other but the wife of Rattan Singh, the step brother of the plaintiff. In case, the power of attorney had to be executed, it would have been in favour of the brother himself. It is not difficult to appreciate that the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur being the child of Harbans Singh from his first marriage would have looked to her four step brothers being her parental family. In case, the power of attorney had to be executed, it would have been in favour of the brother himself. It is not difficult to appreciate that the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur being the child of Harbans Singh from his first marriage would have looked to her four step brothers being her parental family. It is natural that she would always look to them to keep alive that link to her father through her step brothers, especially as she was treated with love and affection, obviously showered upon her by them for considerations, which are apparent from the record. This is particularly understandable keeping in view the societal norms and values especially prevalent at that time. The defendants have admitted that the plaintiff maintained contact with her step brothers and would often visit and stay with them. The fraudulent intention and dishonest plan of the said defendants is apparent and can easily be inferred from the evidence on record. 32. At this stage, it is necessary to make a mention of another General Power of Attorney 08.10.1963, purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of her brother Gurdial Singh. In case, such power of attorney by the plaintiff alongwith others, already stood executed, there was no requirement whatsoever for having executed another power of attorney in the year 1990. Address of plaintiff-Joginder Kaur was wrongly mentioned in the power of attorney as 775, Vikas Kunj/Vikas Puri, Delhi whereas there is no palpable reason for having mentioned an incorrect address in the power of attorney. There is merit in the argument that a fictitious address was deliberately inserted so that a third person may not be able to even contact the plaintiff. 33. Furthermore, reliance by the learned courts below on the testimony of Balkar Singh PW 4, to accept the veracity of the General Power of Attorney and two of the sale deeds is clearly misplaced. This is so for the reason that it is a matter of record that PW 4 Balkar Singh was well known to the defendant Rattan Singh. PW 4 has testified that he knew Rattan Singh since school. Sequence of the entries in the register of PW 4, do raise a suspicion regarding the execution of the "documents in question. This is so for the reason that it is a matter of record that PW 4 Balkar Singh was well known to the defendant Rattan Singh. PW 4 has testified that he knew Rattan Singh since school. Sequence of the entries in the register of PW 4, do raise a suspicion regarding the execution of the "documents in question. PW 4 has testified that whenever he scribes a document, he carries out the necessary entry in his register and the documents are entered in the order in which he scribes them. It is a matter of record that the entry regarding sale deed dated 29.06.1990 is scribed at serial No. 388 i.e. prior to the entry at No. 390 in respect to the General Power of Attorney claimed to have been scribed on 28.06.1990. There is another special power of attorney purported to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of Harcharan Kaur wife of Rattan Singh. There is a cutting in date on the power of attorney insofar as the date 28' is concerned. It is further a matter of record that PW 4 Balkar Singh was summoned by the plaintiff for the purpose of verifying the entries in the register. He was admittedly recalled for cross examination thrice over on 03.08.2005, 11.08.2006 and 11.04.2007. He was summoned by the defendants on application dated 14.06.2008. The said witness was not declared hostile as per the appellant due to reasons best known to their counsel. 34. Original power of attorney dated 28.06.1990 was not produced by the defendants at the outset. It is after the evidence of the plaintiff was completed and closed that the original documents were produced. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 28.08.2006 and the original documents were placed on record by the defendants on 22.02.2007. Hand writing expert, Arvind Sood (DW 8) had been examined by the defendants and signatures on the photocopies had been compared earlier. The plaintiff could examine her hand writing expert only after dismissal of the revision petition filed by the defendants on 23.01.2008. As per the hand writing expert Jassy Anand PW 10, signatures on the original documents are not of the plaintiff but are a result of 'copied forgery'. The plaintiff could examine her hand writing expert only after dismissal of the revision petition filed by the defendants on 23.01.2008. As per the hand writing expert Jassy Anand PW 10, signatures on the original documents are not of the plaintiff but are a result of 'copied forgery'. In this view of the matter, explanation set forth by the plaintiff that the submission regarding taking of her signatures on blank papers by the defendants and misuse of the same cannot be treated as admission is acceptable. Moreover, even if it is treated to be an admission, it is something which has been validly explained by the plaintiff to show that the General Power of Attorney as well as the sale deeds were in fact not executed by her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagu Bai Ammal and others v. B. Shamma Rao and others, AIR 1956 SC 593 observed that: "Admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue." 35. It is further a settled position that admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value another. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry conviction and weight of its probative value would have to be evaluated. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Radha Krishan Singh and others AIR 1983 SC 684 . Sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 are purported to have been executed by the plaintiff herself in person. In case, the plaintiff could be available for execution of the said sale deeds, it does not stand to reason, as to why she would have ever executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of Harcharan Kaur. Vide the said sale deeds, land in question was transferred to her step brothers Gurdial Singh and Rattan Singh. 36. The entire exercise indeed smacks of connivance, misrepresentation and fraud. This Court would be failing in its duty, if the necessary inference is not drawn from the evidence on record. Present is a clear cut case of an unsuspecting sister being defrauded by her own step brothers/bhabi in whom she had reposed implicit trust. 36. The entire exercise indeed smacks of connivance, misrepresentation and fraud. This Court would be failing in its duty, if the necessary inference is not drawn from the evidence on record. Present is a clear cut case of an unsuspecting sister being defrauded by her own step brothers/bhabi in whom she had reposed implicit trust. It is a clear case of misuse and abuse of the position of confidence held by the step brothers of the plaintiff. Both the learned courts below have proceeded on a clear misconception inasmuch as it is observed that once there is an admission by the plaintiff in respect to her signatures with reference to the statement of PW 4 Balkar Singh, the said General Power of Attorney and the sale deeds are proved to have been executed by the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur herself. Both the learned courts below have misread the evidence on record leading to a completely perverse and infirm finding. Learned courts below have further erred in holding that the suits are barred by limitation. The plaintiff's case is that she came to know about the fraud being perpetuated by her own step brothers and sister-in-law after she settled in Punjab, subsequent to the retirement of her husband and consequent increased frequency of her interaction with her relatives. Marriage of her paternal uncle's son (Taya's son) is" admitted by DW 6 Rattan Singh. It is further admitted that the plaintiff was present at the said wedding. Testimony of Rustam Singh cements the case of the plaintiff. It is apparent that the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur had no reason to suspect her brothers at an earlier point of time and she was even not aware of the said acts of the defendants. It is only when she made inquiries, the same came to light. Plaintiff also came to know that the defendants had also raised loans by mortgaging the property without her knowledge and consent. This fact of mortgage of land is borne out from the evidence on record and is not denied by learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Plaintiff subsequently came to know of other sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur in her capacity of the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur and the second suit was instituted as well, for setting aside the said sale deeds. 37. Plaintiff subsequently came to know of other sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur in her capacity of the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur and the second suit was instituted as well, for setting aside the said sale deeds. 37. The deep rooted fraud perpetrated by the defendants is further apparent from the fact that the consideration amount so mentioned in any of the sale deeds is not proved to have been ever handed over to the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur. In respect to the sale deeds purportedly executed in 1990 by the plaintiff herself, in favour of her step brothers, the plaintiff has successfully proved that they did not have the requisite amount at that time. Though an attempt was made by the defendants to project that consideration was paid out of the proceeds received by them from sale of their mother's property in Ashrafpur, there is not an iota of evidence on record to show that their mother was the owner of any such property. Testimony of DW 3 Anoop Singh, who is one of the attesting witnesses of the sale deed dated 03.07.1990, is extremely telling of the facts of the case. DW 3 though stated that the sale deed in question was read over to Joginder Kaur in his presence and in the presence of other witness Teja Singh, Lambardar, could not even identify the plaintiff. Therefore, it is apparent that his testimony is not useful to the defendants for proving sale deed dated 03.07.1990. He did not have a clue regarding the passing of consideration in this case. DW 6 Rattan Singh has asserted that Gurcharan Singh of Ludhiana was present. DW 3 and DW 6 have denied each others presence at the time of execution of the sale deed. The attesting witnesses of the sale deed dated 29.06.1990 were not examined. It bears reiteration that the above said facts have been discussed only to bring out the fraud perpetuated on the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur. Otherwise, once it is held that General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 is not validly executed, the sale deeds on the basis of General Power of Attorney necessarily fall to the ground and can have no binding effect as far as plaintiff-Joginder Kaur is concerned. The finding of both the learned courts below on this count are, thus, perverse and are, accordingly, set aside. The finding of both the learned courts below on this count are, thus, perverse and are, accordingly, set aside. It is, thus, held that General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 as well as sale deeds dated 03.07.1990 and 29.06.1990 are not validly executed instruments, thus, have no binding effect on the rights of the plaintiff. Once it is held that General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 is not valid, the sale deeds so executed by Harcharan Kaur, as power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, needless to say, are not valid instruments conveying title of the property as mentioned therein. 38. An effort was made by the defendant to project that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was transferred in favour of the son of the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur. The plaintiff's son, Air Vice Marshal Charanjit Singh, has duly testified as PW 6. PW 6 categorically testified that on 14/15.04.1997 he was asked by Rattan Singh telephonically, that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash was required by him and as PW 6 was to come to Punjab on 18.07.1997, he should bring the same alongwith him. Rattan Singh had specifically asked PW 6 to get the said amount in cash. It is on his insistence that the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was brought in cash by PW 6. However, Rattan Singh then told PW 6 that he did not require the said amount. PW 6 did not feel safe or secure to carry the cash, back with him to Delhi, therefore, he asked Rattan Singh to prepare a bank draft of this amount. The said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was deposited by PW 6 in the account of Rattan Singh and the demand draft of the said amount was, thus, given to PW 6. Lack of bonafides on the part of Rattan Singh are clear and apparent. There is no occasion to doubt the testimony of PW 6 who was admittedly holding a responsible post in the Armed forces. PW 6 admittedly retired on 30.04.2005 holding the rank of an Air Vice Marshal. The prevalent atmosphere and condition in the State of Punjab in the year 1997 is a matter of common knowledge. Therefore, apprehension felt by PW 6 in again carrying the cash amount to Delhi is reasonable, logical and credible. 39. PW 6 admittedly retired on 30.04.2005 holding the rank of an Air Vice Marshal. The prevalent atmosphere and condition in the State of Punjab in the year 1997 is a matter of common knowledge. Therefore, apprehension felt by PW 6 in again carrying the cash amount to Delhi is reasonable, logical and credible. 39. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the subsequent purchasers of the land insofar as the sale deeds dated 05.07.2000, 14.11.2000 and 20.05.1996 are concerned, did not even contest the case before the learned trial Court. The alleged buyers Satinderpal Sahota, Som Nath and Mohinderpal Singh to whom the plaintiff's share was transferred vide sale deeds dated 05.07.2000, 14.11.2000 and 20.05.1996 never contested the case before the learned trial Court and neither did they appear before the appellate court. In respect to the two sale deeds dated 18.03.1996 in favour of Inder Pal Singh and his wife Rattan Kaur, it is to be noted that the consideration amount as per the said purchasers was handed over by way of different demand drafts. The said demand drafts were issued in the name of all the co-sharers except the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur. Consideration amount falling to her share, it is stated, was issued in favour of Harcharan Kaur. There is no evidence on record that the above said vendors were bonafide purchasers having made proper inquiries regarding the title of the plaintiff. There is indeed no evidence on record to show that Harcharan Kaur had ever passed on the said consideration amount to the plaintiff-Joginder Kaur. The story put forth about the demand draft being given to PW 6 is not believable as discussed above. Moreover, in case, the amount was given by the vendors at the time of execution of the sale deeds on 18.03.1996 there was no occasion to give this demand draft of Rs. 5 lakhs in April, 1997 and that too, to the son of the plaintiff. 40. Harcharan Kaur, it is a matter of record did not even step in the witness box. Rattan Singh, her husband has appeared as a witness in his own right, as well as her attorney which reflects that she avoided the rigours of cross examination. 5 lakhs in April, 1997 and that too, to the son of the plaintiff. 40. Harcharan Kaur, it is a matter of record did not even step in the witness box. Rattan Singh, her husband has appeared as a witness in his own right, as well as her attorney which reflects that she avoided the rigours of cross examination. Thus, the sale deeds' executed by Harcharan Kaur in the capacity of the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff have no binding force and are null and void qua the rights of plaintiff-Joginder Kaur. It is a settled position that she could not have transferred a better title than the one she herself possessed. Inderpal Singh and Rajinder Kaur can at best be entitled to damages/compensation in accordance with law. 41. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that these appeals should be dismissed as both the learned courts below have rendered concurrent findings of fact. This argument is noticed only to be rejected. It is a settled position that in case the concurrent findings of fact are perverse and opposed to the evidence on record, it is the duty of the Court to set them aside and the appeals cannot be dismissed merely and solely on this ground. 42. Last but not the least, learned counsel for the defendants had raised a plea that the present appeal is not maintainable at the instance of Nirmal Gill and it is not borne out from the record as to how she is representing the plaintiff. This argument is absolutely misconceived, untenable, hence, rejected. Perusal of the record reveals that plaintiff-Joginder Kaur had died on 31.08.2011 during the pendency of the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. An application dated 17.09.2011 had been specifically moved by Nirmal Gill for being impleaded as legal representative on the basis of a registered will dated 28.01.2005. No objection thereto had been raised by learned counsel for the defendants and his statement was so recorded on 20.09.2011. The application was duly allowed on 28.09.2011. 43. The substantial questions of law, as formulated are, thus, answered in favour of the appellant. 44. No other argument has been raised. 45. No objection thereto had been raised by learned counsel for the defendants and his statement was so recorded on 20.09.2011. The application was duly allowed on 28.09.2011. 43. The substantial questions of law, as formulated are, thus, answered in favour of the appellant. 44. No other argument has been raised. 45. Judgment and decree dated 03.01.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur as well as judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court -I, Hoshiarpur, are set aside. Suits filed by the plaintiff are, accordingly, decreed. 46. Accordingly, RSA No. 2901 and 3881 of 2012 are allowed.