1,50,000/ on 10th May, 1995 in favour of defendant number.
According to the plaint, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2019.09.17 163311 IST Reason the plaintifffirst respondent Smt.
Before the trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed Whether the sale deed dated 10.05.1995 executed by defendant number 1 in favour of defendant number.
The facts in brief are that the first respondentplaintiff filed a suit against the defendantappellant for cancellation of sale deed dated 10th May, 1995 registered in SubRegistrar Office, Jagadari, Roorkee on 22nd May, 1995.
2 and 3 is liable to be cancelled on the grounds set in the plaint?
Whether the alleged power of attorney dated 25.04.1995 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant number 1 is forged document and the plaintiff did number execute the same?
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
Raquiba, is the wife of Ali Hussain impleaded defendant number 1 .
It was further averred that the impleaded defendants in the suit defendant number.1 and 3, Ali Hussain and Abdul Hassan are the sons of her great grandfather and impleaded defendant number 2 Smt.
If so, its effect?
3,00,000/. It is also alleged in the plaint that there is numberrecital as to who had actually received the sale companysideration and she is in actual possession of the suit property and the forged sale deed was never acted upon.
2 and 3 Smt.
155 of 1996 before the Civil Judge J.D. , Roorkee.
Raquiba and Abdul Hassan .
It was averred in the plaint that the impleaded defendant number1 appellant in order to grab the suit property of the plaintiffrespondent, got prepared a forged registered power of attorney, in the name of the plaintifffirst respondent on 25 th April, 1995 and on the basis of the forged power of attorney, sold the suit property by a registered sale deed for a companysideration of Rs.
The plaintifffirst respondent filed a Suit No.
According to the plaintifffirst respondent, the sale price of the suit property companyld number be less than Rs.
Rastogi, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th August, 2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Second Appeal No.
It was prayed for the decree for cancellation of power of attorney and the sale deed obtained by playing fraud.
