Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Harnam Kaur And Ors vs Amarjit Singh And Anr on 10 November, 2025
RSA-2512-1993 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2512-1993 (O&M)
Reserved on :-03.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement:-10.11.2025
Harnam Kaur (Since Deceased) Through Her LRs and others ... Appellants
Versus
Amarjit Singh and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Argued by :-
Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
1. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted the present Regular Second
Appeal (hereinafter referred to as "RSA") under Section 41 of the Punjab
Courts Act, 1918, assailing the judgments and decrees rendered by the
Courts below. The appeal is primarily founded on the contention that the
findings recorded by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Barnala and the
learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, are contrary to law, founded
upon a manifest misappreciation of evidence, and have occasioned
substantial prejudice to the appellant, thereby warranting the intervention of
this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the said provision.
2. For the sake of clarity and convenience in the discussion, the
parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants,
1 of 14
corresponding to their respective status before the learned Trial Court. The
salient and material facts forming the foundation of the present proceedings,
which are essential for an informed adjudication of the issues, are briefly
narrated as follows:-
"The plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking a declaration
that the power of attorney dated 23.04.1986, allegedly executed
by Kapur Singh (plaintiff No.1) in favour of Gurdev Singh
(defendant No.2), is forged, fictitious, and void, conferring no
authority to alienate the plaintiff's property. They further
sought a declaration that sale deeds No.325 and 326 dated
25.04.1986, executed by Gurdev Singh in favour of Amarjit
Singh (defendant No.1) regarding 1/7th share of land
measuring 228 kanals 7 marlas situated at village Jehlan,
Tehsil Barnala, are illegal, null, and void, and a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with possession or alienating the suit land.
The case of the plaintiffs is that Kapur Singh, a 95-year-
old illiterate and visually impaired villager, was fraudulently
induced by Gurdev Singh under the pretext of obtaining eye
medication to accompany him to Ludhiana, where his thumb
impressions were obtained on certain papers without reading or
explaining their contents. Subsequently, he discovered that
Gurdev Singh had deceitfully procured a general power of
attorney in his name and, acting upon it, executed two sale
deeds in favour of Amarjit Singh. Upon learning of the fraud,
Kapur Singh immediately revoked the said power of attorney
2 of 14
through a registered revocation deed dated 25.04.1986. It was
asserted that Kapur Singh had no relation with the defendants,
had never resided at the address mentioned in the impugned
document, and had no occasion or necessity to appoint Gurdev
Singh as his attorney. The entire transaction, including the
alleged sale deeds, is claimed to be fraudulent, without
authority, and without consideration."
3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written
statement. Defendant No.1, Amarjit Singh, asserted that the power of
attorney dated 23.04.1986 was voluntarily and validly executed by Kapur
Singh, duly authorizing Gurdev Singh to alienate the property. He contended
that the impugned sale deeds were executed for lawful consideration and are
binding. Allegations of fraud, coercion, or incapacity were emphatically
denied, terming the plaintiffs' case as false and collusive. He further pleaded
lack of locus standi, misjoinder of parties and causes of action, estoppel, and
improper valuation. He maintained that the sale transactions preceded the
alleged revocation and that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice. Defendant No.2, Gurdev Singh, similarly denied all allegations,
asserting that the sales were validly executed under due authority and that
the full sale consideration of ₹40,000/- was paid to Kapur Singh on
27.04.1986 against a duly executed receipt.
4. Plaintiffs filed replications and specifically controverted the
assertions made in the written statements and reaffirmed their original
pleadings. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the pleadings and rival
contentions, the Court was pleased to frame the following issues for
3 of 14
adjudication, so as to ensure a precise, comprehensive, and effective
determination of the matters in controversy:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got no lecus-standi to file the suit?
OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is bad for mis-jeinder of parties/causes of action?
OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped in filing the suit by their act and
conduct?OPD
(4) Whether the suit has been brought by the plaintiff in collusion with
defendant No.2? If so, to what effect? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of
court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(6) Whether the general power of attorney dated 23.04.1986 is the
outcome of mis-representation and fraud? OPP
(7) Whether the sale deeds dated 25.04.1986 purported to have been
executed by the plaintiff Kapur Singh in favour of defendant No. 1
are null and void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs?
OPP
(8) Whether the defendant No. 1 is a bona fide purchaser of suit land
for consideration and without notice of the invalidity of the power
of attorney? OPD
(9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for 7
OPP
(10) Relief.
5. The parties were afforded ample opportunity to adduce evidence
in support of their respective claims and defense. Upon the conclusion of
evidence and after hearing learned counsel at length, the learned Sub-Judge
Ist Class, Barnala having carefully considered the pleadings, material on
record, and submissions advanced, dismissed the suit and observed that "In
4 of 14
view of the foregoing findings, the plaintiffs' suit is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed with costs." Aggrieved by this judgment and decree,
an appeal was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala,
which was also dismissed by observing that "Consequently, the appeal lacks
merit and is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared."
6. The appellant has instituted the present appeal assailing the
concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Courts below.
The appeal having been duly admitted, notice was issued to the respondents,
who entered appearance through counsel and advanced arguments. Pursuant
thereto, the complete record of the subordinate Courts was requisitioned for
comprehensive examination and judicious adjudication of the matter.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
bestowed my anxious consideration upon their respective submissions in
light of the pleadings, the evidentiary material on record, and the concurrent
findings returned by the Courts below. The record has been meticulously
perused to assess the rival contentions and to determine 'whether the
impugned judgments and decrees suffer from any error apparent on the face
of the record, legal infirmity, procedural irregularity, or manifest perversity
so as to warrant interference in the limited exercise of appellate
jurisdiction'?
8. In view of the pleadings, evidence, and findings returned by the
Courts below, this appeal gives rise to the following two substantial
questions of law for consideration:
(i) Whether the execution and subsequent revocation of the General
Power of Attorney dated 23.04.1986 by Kapur Singh in favour of
5 of 14
Gurdev Singh establish that the said Power of Attorney was validly
executed, thereby negating the plea of fraud alleged by the
appellants/plaintiffs?
(ii) Whether the acknowledging the receipt (Ex.DW-10/A) dated
27.04.1986 and acceptance of sale consideration of ₹40,000/- by
Kapur Singh amounts to ratification of the sale transaction under the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, thereby validating the sale deeds executed
by the attorney?
Validity of Power of Attorney
9. It stands duly established from the oral as well as documentary evidence
on record that Kapur Singh had voluntarily executed the registered General
Power of Attorney (Ex.D5) in favour of Gurdev Singh on 23.04.1986. The
document was executed before the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana, and the
endorsement of registration bears the thumb impression of Kapur Singh, who
was identified by Sujan Singh, Numberdar, and attested by Iqbal Singh, both
of whom have supported the execution in their depositions. The deed writer,
Harnam Singh (DW-3), and the then Sub-Registrar, Surinder Mohan Sharma
(DW-7), have categorically stated that the document was read over to Kapur
Singh, who admitted its contents and affixed his thumb impression while
being in a sound and disposing state of mind. The expert witness, Dewan
K.S. Puri (DW-6), confirmed that the thumb impressions on the Power of
Attorney and the revocation deed were identical, thereby proving that both
were executed by Kapur Singh himself. The medical evidence produced by
the plaintiffs was found unreliable, as the doctor examined Kapur Singh
almost a month after the execution and admitted that he appeared normal at
that time. Thus, the concurrent findings of the courts below rightly hold that
6 of 14
the Power of Attorney was validly executed by Kapur Singh of his free will
and in sound mind, without any element of fraud or misrepresentation.
Revocation of Power of Attorney
10. Subsequently, the fact that Kapur Singh himself executed a
registered Revocation Deed (Ex.PW3/A) on 25.04.1986, merely two days
later, assumes great significance. Firstly, there is no allegation of deceit or
undue influence in the revocation deed itself, and it contains no statement
suggesting that Kapur Singh was unaware of the nature of the earlier
document. In the Revocation Deed (Ex.PW3/0A), Kapur Singh did not allege
that the Power of Attorney had been procured by fraud or misrepresentation.
Instead, he stated that he now doubted the agent and, apprehending possible
misuse, thus he desired to revoke the authority. This clear recital indicates
that the Power of Attorney was voluntarily executed in the first instance, and
that the revocation stemmed merely from a subsequent loss of confidence.
Contrastingly, in the plaint, the plaintiff-Kapur Singh introduced an entirely
different story of fraud and deceit by defendant no. 2, which directly
contradicts the express recital in the registered revocation deed. Such
inconsistency undermines the credibility of their version.
11. Secondly, the said revocation demonstrates that Kapur Singh
had later withdrawn the authority earlier granted to Gurdev Singh, and not
that the Power of Attorney itself was fraudulently procured. The recitals in
the revocation deed expressly acknowledge that Kapur Singh had executed
the General Power of Attorney on 23.04.1986 and now intended to cancel it,
showing a clear admission of its prior execution. It expressly acknowledges
that the act of executing a registered revocation deed demonstrates that
7 of 14
Kapur Singh had full knowledge of and admitted the earlier execution of the
Power of Attorney. Once such revocation deed was executed, the plea that
the Power of Attorney was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation loses
all credibility. Thus, the plea of fraud raised by the plaintiffs on the ground
that Kapur Singh was aged, illiterate, of weak eyesight, and incapable of
understanding the document, was rightly disbelieved by both Courts below.
The learned Trial Court noticed that the revocation deed was also a registered
document, executed before the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana, in which Kapur
Singh consciously and voluntarily canceled the Power of Attorney, stating
that he had lost faith in his attorney. This conduct unmistakably shows that
Kapur Singh was fully aware of the Power of Attorney, its contents, and its
legal implications. A person cannot revoke an instrument unless he first
admits its execution. Thus, the act of revocation operates as an unequivocal
acknowledgment of execution. The subsequent plea that the earlier document
was obtained by deceit stands self-contradicted by Kapur Singh's own
conduct and admissions. Hence, the revocation does not cast any doubt on
the genuineness of the Power of Attorney but rather reinforces that Kapur
Singh was conscious of his earlier act and voluntarily chose to rescind the
authority subsequently.
Effect of Revocation
12. It further deserves emphasis that there was no intimation or
communication of the said revocation by Kapur Singh either to the attorney,
Gurdev Singh, or to the purchaser, Amarjit Singh. Both the learned Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court have recorded a clear finding that neither
the agent nor the vendee was informed of any cancellation of the authority
prior to the execution and registration of the sale deeds. Gurdev Singh (DW-
8 of 14
11) categorically stated that he had never received any notice or knowledge
of revocation and that he executed the sale deeds bona fide under the
subsisting Power of Attorney. The vendee too was never apprised of such
revocation. In this context, Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
squarely applies, which lays down that "the termination of the authority of
an agent does not, so far as regards the agent, take effect before it becomes
known to him, or, so far as regards third persons, before it becomes known to
them." Hence, unless and until the revocation was communicated to the
attorney or became known to the third party dealing with him, the authority
continued to subsist in law. The absence of such notice renders the
revocation ineffective against transactions lawfully executed in good faith
before knowledge thereof. The courts below, relying upon this principle,
rightly held that the sale deeds executed by Gurdev Singh prior to any
intimation of revocation were valid and binding.
13. Moreover, the revocation of the Power of Attorney had no effect on
the sale deeds executed by Gurdev Singh in favour of Amarjit Singh under
the authority conferred upon him by the said Power of Attorney dated
23.04.1986. Once the Power of Attorney was validly executed and the sale
deeds were registered before the date of revocation, the subsequent
cancellation could not invalidate those transactions. Therefore, the courts
below have rightly observed that such revocation operates prospectively and
cannot invalidate transactions lawfully effected prior to its cancellation. In
view of Section 208 of the Contract Act and the concurrent finding that no
notice of revocation was ever conveyed to either the agent or the purchaser,
the authority of Gurdev Singh subsisted in law on the date of execution of
the sale deeds, rendering the transactions valid and binding.
9 of 14
14. Viewed cumulatively, the evidence of due execution, the
registration of both the Power of Attorney and its revocation, the absence of
any allegation of fraud in the revocation deed, leave no manner of doubt that
the Power of Attorney was validly executed by Kapur Singh while in a sound
and disposing state of mind. The concurrent findings that no notice of
revocation was ever issued to the attorney or the purchaser, as required under
Section 208 of the Contract Act, further nullify the plea of invalidity. The
plea of fraud or misrepresentation has been rightly rejected as untenable by
both the courts below. Consequently, the execution and subsequent
revocation of the General Power of Attorney dated 23.04.1986 by Kapur
Singh conclusively establish that it was voluntarily and validly executed. The
act of registered revocation deed operates as an acknowledgment of
authenticity and negates the plea of fraud in execution of power of attorney.
The recitals in the revocation deed, the concurrent findings of both the courts
below, and the express authority to sell contained in Ex.D5 collectively prove
that the transaction was genuine and lawful.
Receipt of Sale Consideration (Ex.DW10) and Ratification of Sale
15. The defendants produced on record a receipt dated 27.04.1986
(Ex.DW-10/A) bearing the thumb impression of Kapur Singh,
acknowledging the receipt of ₹40,000/- towards sale consideration. The
execution of this receipt was corroborated by Gurdev Singh (attorney) and by
Tehal Singh (DW10), who both deposed that the amount was handed over to
Kapur Singh by Gurdev Singh in the House of Tehal Singh, and after
obtaining the said amount he himself kept the same in his own bag. The
testimony of DW11 Gurdev Singh (attorney), DW8 Amarjit Singh (vendee),
10 of 14
and DW10 Tehal Singh (attesting witness), found that the sale consideration
of ₹40,000/- was paid in cash along with some another amount to Kapur
Singh, and receipt was written and read over to him which was a duly
signed/thumb-marked and executed by him acknowledging the same. The
witness Tehal Singh, who was an independent villager, supported this fact
without any material contradiction in cross-examination. The First Appellate
Court upheld this finding and observed that Ex.DW10/A clearly shows that
Kapur Singh had full knowledge of the sale and consciously accepted the
consideration.
16. The authenticity of the receipt (Ex.DW10/A) and the testimony of
these witnesses remained wholly unrebutted. It is also noted that no evidence
or independent witness was examined by the plaintiff to prove that the thumb
impression on Ex.DW10/A was forged or that the witnesses were interested.
Further, Kapur Singh neither initiated any criminal proceedings challenging
the receipt of sale consideration nor led any evidence to contradict the
statements of Gurdev Singh or Amarjit Singh. Even in the plaint, there was
no specific plea that no consideration had passed. When the execution of the
sale deeds is proved and the sale consideration is acknowledged, and such
acknowledgment remains unrebutted, the presumption under Section 91 and
92 of the Evidence Act applies, and the burden shifts upon the person
disputing it to prove otherwise. However, No evidence having been led by
the plaintiffs to rebut the presumption of due consideration, the finding that
the sale consideration was duly paid stands affirmed.
17. For ready reference, the relevant section 196 to Section 198 of Indian
Contract Act,1872 are required to be reproduced here:
11 of 14
"Section 196. Right of person as to acts done for him without
his authority. Effect of ratification.- Where acts are done by
one person on behalf of another, but without his knowledge or
authority, he may elect to ratify or to disown such acts. If he
ratify them, the same effects will follow as if they had been
performed by his authority.
Section197. Ratification may be expressed or implied.-
Ratification may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct
of the person on whose behalf the acts are done.
Section198. Knowledge requisite for valid ratification.- No
valid ratification can be made by a person whose knowledge of
the facts of the case is materially defective.
18. It has come on record that the principal, Kapur Singh, accepted the
sale consideration amount from Gurdev Singh vide receipt Ex.DW10/A on
27.04.1986. The sale transactions in question had already been executed by
Gurdev Singh, as attorney, on 25.04.1986. Thus, by the time the amount was
received, Kapur Singh was fully aware and had knowlegde of the said sale
deeds and the alienation effected by Gurdev Singh on his behalf. His
acceptance of the consideration, with such knowledge, clearly attracts the
principle of implied ratification as contemplated under Sections 196 and 197
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The requirement of knowledge under
Section 198 also stands fulfilled, as the act of acceptance was done with full
awareness of the material facts. Even if, as alleged by the principal, the agent
was not originally authorised to alienate the property, the act of acceptance of
the sale consideration coupled with Kapur Singh's inaction and non-rebuttal
amounts to a conscious adoption of the transaction, thereby constituting a
12 of 14
implied ratification of the sale made by the attorney under the provisions of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and rendering the same valid and binding in
law.
19. Further, the conduct of Kapur Singh reveals that, while accepting the
sale consideration from Gurdev Singh with full knowledge of the
transactions, he was simultaneously disputing the very Power of Attorney on
the plea of fraud and misrepresentation. It appears that he acted cleverly and
with calculated design, intending to deceive the vendee, Amarjit Singh, in
collusion with the agent Gurdev Singh. Such inconsistent and self-serving
behaviour clearly reflects mala fide intent. The law does not permit such
double standards; a person cannot be allowed to both approbate and
reprobate, that is, to accept the benefit of a transaction and at the same time
deny the authority under which it was made.
20. Accordingly, this Court holds that the subsequent acceptance of sale
consideration by Kapur Singh, despite his contemporaneous challenge to the
attorney, amounts to implied ratification under Sections 196 to 198 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, the sale deeds executed by Gurdev
Singh on 25.04.1986 stand duly validated in the eyes of law, and the
transactions, being complete, for valuable consideration, and duly ratified in
law, are binding upon Kapur Singh and his legal heirs.
21. In light of the foregoing discussion, both the issues are answered
against the appellants. The execution and revocation of the Power of
Attorney conclusively establish its genuineness, and the subsequent
acknowledgment of consideration by Kapur Singh through Ex.DW10
amounts to ratification of the sale transactions. The pleas of fraud,
misrepresentation, or want of authority are devoid of merit. Consequently,
13 of 14
the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court and
affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are based on a proper
appreciation of evidence and suffer from no illegality or perversity, and
therefore does not want inference by this court.
22. No other substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The judgments and
decrees passed by the learned Courts below are affirmed.
23. Consequent upon the final adjudication of the main appeal, all
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of in view of the
judgment rendered herein. No further orders are required.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
10.11.2025 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
14 of 14
