Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Phoola Singh vs Chand Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:47115) on 1 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:47115]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 175/2020
LR's of Phoola Singh, (Deceased Now):-
1. Tej kaur W/o (Widow) Phoola Singh, Aged about 76 years,
resident of Dola, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar
(Punjab).
2. Kuldeep Kaur D/o Phoola Singh, W/o Thana Singh, aged
about 57 years, resident of Mohala, Tehsil & District
Bhatinda (Punjab).
3. Kaur Singh S/o Phoola Singh, aged about 55 years,
resident of Dola, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar
(Punjab).
4. Sukjeet Kaur D/o Phoola Singh, W/o Ghilla Singh, aged
about 52 years, resident of Nandgarh, Tehsil and District
Bhatinda (Punjab).
5. Jagjeet Singh S/o Phoola Singh, aged about 50 years,
resident of Dola, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar
(Punjab).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Chand Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Village
Gopalsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.),
At Present R/o Dola, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar
(Punjab)
2. Jangir Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Village
Gopalsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
3. Teja Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Village Gopalsar,
Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
4. Sulakhan Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Village
Gopalsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kishan Bansal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/11/2025
1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants against the
judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020, passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Suratgarh in Civil Appeal No.18/2019
(Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 04:08:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47115] (2 of 3) [CSA-175/2020]
(CIS No.18/2019), whereby the judgment and decree dated
06.08.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Suratgarh, District
Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No.48/2014 (CIS No.499/2015), titled
"Phoola Singh v. Chand Singh & Ors.", has been affirmed and the
appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the
present appeal are that the plaintiff--late Phoola Singh, husband
of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 to 5, instituted a
civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Suratgarh, through his
power of attorney holder, appellant No.3 seeking (i) cancellation of
the sale deed dated 17.06.1980, (ii) declaration and possession of
the suit property, and (iii) perpetual injunction.
3. The learned Trial Court framed as many as four issues,
including one relating to the relief sought. Issues No.1 and 2,
being fundamental in nature, were decided against the plaintiff-
appellant, while Issue No.3 was decided against the defendants-
respondents. While adjudicating Issues No.1 and 2, the learned
Trial Court held that the power of attorney executed by Phoola
Singh in favour of Bhagwan Singh S/o Sajjan Singh duly
authorized the attorney to undertake proceedings for the sale of
the land. The Court further observed that the said power of
attorney was not restricted merely to managing the land or
defending cases before the revenue courts. On the basis of such
findings, the learned Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit vide
judgment and decree dated 06.08.2019.
4. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the aforesaid
judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020, affirming the
(Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 04:08:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47115] (3 of 3) [CSA-175/2020]
findings recorded by the Trial Court. Upon an exhaustive
examination of the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the learned Appellate Court concluded that the findings of
fact recorded by the Trial Court were correct and required no
interference.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and upon
perusal of the impugned judgments, this Court is of the
considered opinion that both the learned Courts below have duly
appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in its correct
and true perspective. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed
to establish that the power of attorney executed by Phoola Singh
in favour of Bhagwan Singh was limited solely to contesting or
defending cases before the revenue courts and did not authorize
the holder to proceed with the sale of the land. No perversity or
illegality has been demonstrated in the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the Courts below.
6. In view thereof, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises for consideration by this Court
in this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly
dismissed.
7. No order as to cost.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
22-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 04:08:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
