Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Findings on Fraudulent Power of Attorney and Invalid Family Settlement, Dismisses Appeals and Contempt Petition
Case Name: Mahinder Singh and Another v. Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through LRs and Others; Lakmi v. Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through LRs and Others
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: RSA-71-1999, RSA-72-1999, RSA-3912-1998, RSA-3913-1998, COCP-1620-2008 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed four connected Regular Second Appeals and a contempt petition, affirming concurrent findings that the alleged family settlement and decree dated January 14, 1983, in favour of the appellants were fraudulent and void. Justice Virinder Aggarwal held that no pre-existing right existed in favour of the appellants, and the decree required compulsory registration to confer any title. The Court further ruled that the change in Khasra Girdwari and Jamabandi entries in favour of Lakhmi was made without notice to the rightful owner, Sukh Ram, and thus legally invalid. The contempt petition alleging violation of a status quo order was also found to be vague and baseless.
Summary: The dispute revolved around ownership and possession of agricultural land measuring 31 kanals 15 marlas in Village Jawan, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Sukh Ram, the original owner, filed suits challenging sale deeds executed by Charan Singh under a fraudulent power of attorney and a decree allegedly suffered by him in favour of Mohinder Singh and Satpal on the basis of a purported family settlement. The trial court held the power of attorney and the resulting sale deeds void for fraud and misrepresentation, and found the decree dated January 14, 1983, similarly invalid. It further held that Lakhmi’s possession, as reflected in revenue records, was unauthorized.
The first appellate court affirmed these findings, holding that Sukh Ram remained in possession of the land and that the changes in Khasra Girdwari and Jamabandi were made without following due legal procedure. In the second appeal, the appellants argued that Sukh Ram had lawfully transferred the land through family settlement and that the decree was genuine. They also alleged contempt of court, claiming that the respondents violated a status quo order by executing a sale deed during the pendency of the appeal.
Justice Aggarwal rejected these arguments, relying on expert evidence that confirmed the thumb impressions on the alleged decree were not Sukh Ram’s. The Court held that, in the absence of any pre-existing right, the decree could not confer ownership without registration under the Registration Act, 1908. It further found that the alleged possession of Lakhmi was invalid as the change in revenue records was effected without notice to Sukh Ram. The contempt petition was dismissed as vague and unsupported by factual details.
Decision: The High Court dismissed all four Regular Second Appeals, upholding the findings of the lower courts that the decree dated January 14, 1983, was obtained through impersonation and fraud, and that Lakhmi’s possession was not lawful. The Court also dismissed the contempt petition, holding that no willful disobedience of court orders was established. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.