1978 Supreme(SC) 385
D.A.DESAI, P.N.SHINGHAL
Syed Abdul Khader – Appellant
Versus
Rami Reddy – Respondent
Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, A.SUBBA RAO, D.P.MUKHERJI, KRISHNA SHARMA, UPENDRALAL VAGHRY, V.GUPTA
Judgement Key Points
- The appeal arises from a suit for possession of lands, mesne profits, accounts, and injunction, filed by the plaintiff against multiple defendants. (!) [1000180990001]
- Plaintiff, son of Kazim Yar Jung, received patta for lands granted by Nizam's Government; amid 1948 disturbances, plaintiff, father, and brother executed general Power of Attorney (Ext. P-1, dated 10-4-1949) in favor of defendant 34, supplemented by Ext. P-2 (20-4-1949), at instance of defendant 1. [1000180990001]
- Plaintiff alleged fraud by defendants 1 and 34, claimed PoA vague/void, did not authorize sales; cancelled PoA via notice on 25-10-1949; sued claiming purchasers acquired no title. [1000180990001]
- Defendants contended plaintiff was benamidar for father; PoA valid, authorized sales for consideration; plaintiff aware. [1000180990002]
- Trial court held plaintiff absolute owner, PoA valid authorizing sales, decreed possession for unsold items (27-40,42-44,46,47,55-67,69). [1000180990003]
- High Court dismissed both appeals, set aside trial decree entirely; permitted additional sale deeds under O.41 R.27 CPC. [1000180990004][1000180990020]
- Compromise recorded with respondents 1,2,3,34; appeal proceeded against others. [1000180990006]
- Joint PoA by three co-principals to one agent permissible under agency principles; co-principals jointly liable. [1000180990009] (!) (!)
- Scope of PoA depends on terms and purpose; not limited to joint affairs/properties absent indication. [1000180990010]
- Ext. P-1 styled general PoA, empowered agent for cases in courts/revenue offices, purchase/sell lands, execute/register sale deeds, borrow, etc.; acts binding as principals'. (!)
- Ext. P-2 affirmed P-1, expressly confirmed power to sell/register. (!) (!)
- PoA strictly construed, but surrounding circumstances (disturbances, migration plans, individual lands) show authority for each principal's individual properties. [1000180990011][1000180990012]
- No joint property/venture among principals; executed for convenience to manage/sell individual lands amid chaos. [1000180990012]
- PoA valid despite sub-registrar not endorsing identification/knowledge of executants; general PoA not compulsorily registrable. [1000180990013]
- Ext. P-1 expressly conferred power to purchase/sell lands (twice mentioned); Ext. P-2 supplemental thereto; plaintiff admitted P-2 added sale power. [1000180990014]
- "Lands" includes agricultural land. [1000180990015]
- No precondition tying sales to litigation finance/loan repayment; each power independent (sell lands, appoint pleaders, file suits, borrow, compromise). [1000180990016] (!) (!)
- Father negotiated sale (Ext. D-18, 14-2-1949) pre-PoA; agent executed deed; but plaintiff present, accepted consideration (Ext. D-16); acquiesced. [1000180990017]
- Plaintiff estopped from challenging sale; S.41 TPA applies (ostensible owner with consent transfers for consideration). [1000180990017][1000180990018] (!)
- Plaintiff's post-suspicion notice (Ext. D-21, 19-12-1949) invited defendant 1 to buy other lands, belying fraud claim. [1000180990019]
- Appellate court may permit additional evidence (sale deeds) under O.41 R.27 CPC if needed to pronounce judgment; High Court properly exercised discretion. [1000180990020]
- Plaintiff not benamidar: patta grant (no consideration from father); S.82 Trusts Act ingredients absent. [1000180990022][1000180990023]
- Compromise with alleged fraudsters (1,34) does not affect claims against purchasers re PoA authority/title. [1000180990024]
- Appeal dismissed with costs. [1000180990026] (!)
Judgment
DESAI, J.:-This appeal by certificate granted under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution arises from Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 1952 filed by the appellant against 56 respondents for recovering possession of lands more particularly set out in the Schedule annexed to the plaint, mesne profits, accounts and injunction, which suit was largely dismissed and partly decreed by the trial Court but in appeals bearing A. S. Nos. 252 and 283 of 1960 by the unsuccessful defendants and the plaintiff, respectively, was dismissed as a whole.
2. A brief narration of facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised herein may be set out. Plaintiff-appellant is the son of late Kazim Yar Jung who was a Minister of H. E. H. the Nizam of Hyderabad. The father of the plaintiff obtained grant of certain lands in Rayalamadugu village from the Government of Nizam, the patta having been granted in the name of the plaintiff. At about the time of police action in 1948 when the local conditions in Hyderabad City and State were disturbed, the plaintiff, his father Kazim Yar Jung and his step brother Mustafa found it difficult to even approach their lands and the plaintiff was then contemplating to sh
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
