Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN B. LOKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
HARJAS RAI MAKHIJA (D) THR. LRS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PUSHPARANI JAIN & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11491 OF 2016
DECIDED ON : 02-01-2017
(2010) 8 SCC 383 – Relied upon
(2007) 4 SCC 221; (2012) 1 SCC 476; (2005) 7 SCC 605; (2009) 12 SCC 378 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Respondent No.1, Pushparani Jain (Pushparani) was allotted Plot No.251 in Major Shopping Centre Zone - II, Habibganj, Bhopal under Scheme No.13 of the Bhopal Development Authority (for short BDA). She appointed her brother Jinendra Jain as her attorney on or about 28th August, 1981 and on that basis she was able to obtain possession of the plot allotted to her and complete the necessary formalities.
According to the appellant Harjas Rai Makhija (Makhija), another Power of Attorney had been executed by Pushparani on 30th April, 1983 in favour of Jinendra Jain. The original of this document has not been produced by anybody. It is alleged that on the basis of this Power of Attorney an agreement was entered into between Jinendra Jain and Makhija on 16th October, 1988 to sell the plot allotted to Pushparani in favour of Makhija. In terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 30th April, 1989.
Pushparani filed a civil suit before the District Judge, Bhopal praying for a declaration that the agreement for sale dated 16th October, 1988 was without any authority given to Jinendra Jain as also for recovery of possession and grant of mesne profits since possession of the plot had been given by Jinendra Jain to Makhija.
Makhija also filed a civil suit before the District Judge praying for specific performance of the agreement dated 16th October, 1988 allegedly entered into by him with Pushparani through her attorney Jinendra Jain.
The suit filed by Pushparani was decreed with the result that the agreement for sale dated 16th October, 1988 was declared to be illegal. It was also decreed that Makhija shall handover possession of the suit property to Pushparani and pay monthly compensation of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The suit filed by Makhija was dismissed.
Makhija preferred two appeals before the High Court challenging the decree granted in favour of Pushparani and the dismissal of his suit.
During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, Makhija filed an application before the High Court under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence.
The High Court dismissed both the appeals filed by Makhija as well as the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.
Finding of the Court:
Every non-disclosure is not fraud.
Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.
Yes, the judgement makes references to both locus and fraud. The court discusses the issue of whether the non-disclosure of certain facts, such as the Power of Attorney, constitutes fraud. It emphasizes that not every non-disclosure amounts to fraud and that fraud must be proved through evidence, including intent to deceive. The judgement also clarifies that allegations of fraud need to be substantiated with proof, and mere allegations without evidence are insufficient. Furthermore, the court acknowledges that the question of whether a party had the locus standi (legal standing) to initiate proceedings or assert claims is relevant in the context of allegations of fraud and non-disclosure. Overall, the judgement addresses both the concept of locus in the context of the parties' standing and the legal standards required to prove fraud. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
The appellant (Harjas Rai Makhija represented by his legal representatives) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in FA No.961 of 2010 whereby his appeal has been dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. Respondent No.1, Pushparani Jain (Pushparani) was allotted Plot No.251 in Major Shopping Centre Zone - II, Habibganj, Bhopal under Scheme No.13 of the Bhopal Development Authority (for short BDA). Since she was a resident of the United States of America and had some difficulty in completing the formalities with regard to the allotment, she appointed her brother Jinendra Jain as her attorney on or about 28th August, 1981. This was communicated by her to the Chairman of the BDA by a letter of the same date.
3. On the basis of the communication sent by Pushparani to the BDA, and on the basis of the Power of Attorney given by her to Jinendra Jain, she was able to obtain possession of the plot allotted to her and complete the necessary formalities.
4. According to the appellant Harjas Rai Makhija (Makhija), another Power of Attorney had been executed by Pushparani on 30th April, 1983 in favour of Jinendra Jain. The original of this document has not been produced by anybody. Be that as it may, on the basis of the alleged Power of Attorney dated 30th April, 1983, an agreement was entered into between Jinendra Jain and Makhija on 16th October, 1988 to sell the plot allotted to Pushparani in favour of Makhija. In terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 30th April, 1989.
5. When Pushparani came to know about the agreement for sale in respect of the plot allotted to her, she filed a civil suit before the District Judge, Bhopal and that suit subsequently came to be numbered as Suit No. 51-A of 1999. The prayer made by Pushparani in the plaint was for a declaration that the agreement for sale dated 16th October, 1988 was without any authority given to Jinendra Jain. She also made a prayer for recovery of possession and grant of mesne profits since possession of the plot had been given by Jinendra Jain to Makhija.
6. Makhija also filed a civil suit before the District Judge which subsequently came to be numbered as Suit No.52-A of 1999. The prayer made by Makhija was for specific performance of the agreement dated 16th October, 1988 entered into by him with Pushparani through her attorney Jinendra Jain.
7. Both the suits one filed by Pushparani and the other by Makhija were taken up and heard together. By a judgment and decree dated 4th October, 1999 the suit filed by Pushparani was decreed with the result that the agreement for sale dated 16th October, 1988 was declared to be illegal. It was also decreed that Makhija shall handover possession of the suit property to Pushparani and pay monthly compensation of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The suit filed by Makhija was dismissed.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the result of the two suits mentioned above, Makhija preferred two appeals before the High Court being F.A. No. 607 of 1999 and F.A. No.638 of 1999 challenging the decree granted in favour of Pushparani and the dismissal of his suit.
9. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, Makhija filed an application before the High Court under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure [Order XLI Rule 27. - Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. - (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if -
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
