Rakesh Kumar Verma, S/o. Late Shri Makhan Singh Verma vs Komal Singh, S/o. Khedu Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Chh) 199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Rakesh Kumar Verma, S/o. Late Shri Makhan Singh Verma - Appellant
Versus
Komal Singh, S/o. Khedu Singh and Ors. - Respondents
FA No. 54 of 2015, FA No. 55 of 2015, FA No. 56 of 2015, FA No. 63 of 2015, FA No. 64 of 2015, FA No. 65 of 2015
Decided On : 25-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, assisted by Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini and Ms. Archi Agrawal.
For the Respondents: Mr. Alok Bakshi and Mr. B.L. Parakh, Mr. R.M. Solapurkar.

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 96 - Order 18 Rule 4 - Suit for declaration and injunction - Decree of Court -Appeal - transfer by ostensible owner -Whether in view of Power of Attorney agency has been created and how agency can be terminated - Held, transfer by ostensible owner with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorized to make it: provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith.- legal position is not disputed but in same judgment it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that evidence to rebut service should have brought on record which appellant has failed to do - legal position with regard of Power of Attorney has held in this case is not in dispute - Appeal Dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since an identical issue is involved in bunch of these appeals, they are heard analogously and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. The details of civil suits decided on 31.01.2015 filed by the plaintiffs with regard to declaration and injunction of suit properties described in the suits, their case No., name of the parties and appeal filed before this court are given in tabulated form as under :

Appeal No.	Civil Suit No.	Parties before the trial Court	Property /Sale deed date
FA /54/2015	23-A/2011	Komal Singh and others vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma and Others	Khasra No. 509/2 area 5 Acres, Sale deed dated 24.05.2000
FA /55/2015	21-A/2011	Komal Singh and others vs. Ku. Ranjna Daani and Others	Khasra No. 16 area 3.95 Ha, Sale deed dated 01.06.2000
FA /56/2015	22-A/2011	Komal Singh and others vs. Smt. Geeta Agrawal and Others	Khasra No. 545/2 area 1.46 Ha, Sale deed dated 24.05.2000
FA /63/2015	23-A/2011	Komal Singh and others vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma and Others	Khasra No. 509/2 area 5 Acres, Sale deed dated 24.05.2000
FA /64/2015	22-A/2011	Komal Singh and others vs. Smt. Geeta Agrawal and Others	Khasra No. 545/2 area 1.46 Ha, Sale deed dated 24.05.2000
FA /65/2015	21-A/2011	Komal Singh and others vs. Ku. Ranjna Daani and Others	Khasra No. 16 area 3.95 Ha, Sale deed dated 01.06.2000

3. For sake of convenience the parties have been referred to as described in the civil suit before the learned Additional District Judge, Bemetara and the pleadings and evidence brought on record in Civil Suit No. 23A/2011 and ground raised in appeal No. 54/2015 are being considered for deciding these bunch of first appeal.

4. These are defendants’ first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) as detailed in foregoing paragraphs.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that, the plaintiff No. 1 had executed a registered power of attorney dated 20.12.1982 in favour of defendant No. 2 for taking care of his land situated at Village Keshdabri, Tahsil- Berla, District-Bemetara (C.G.) bearing khasra no. 509/2 area 5 Acres. It is contended by the plaintiffs that, when the defendant No. 2 Satish Daani interfered in the interest of the plaintiff No. 1, he cancelled the power of attorney, for which, he executed a revocation of power of attorney dated 25.06.1997, before the Sub-Registrar, Durg and the information was also sent to defendant No. 2 by U.P.C. on 05.07.1997. The further case of plaintiffs is that, despite having knowledge about the revocation of power of attorney and also he has no right over the property of the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 2 had executed sale deed dated 24.05.2000, 01/06/2000 by which, sold out the land in question of the plaintiff to the appellants for consideration to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/-, 1,10,300/-, 02,18,000/- and the said amount has not been paid to the plaintiffs. It is specifically contended by the plaintiffs that, without any information, with the connivance of the revenue authorities, the defendant No. 1 got his name mutated in the revenue records.

6. It has been further contended that on the basis of cancelled Power of Attorney, the defendant No. 2 has sold the portion of suit property bearing Khasra No. 509 which was earlier 2.64 Ha. out of which 2 Ha has been sold to the defendant No. 1, as such the property has been divided as Khasra No. 509/1 area .64 Ha which was in the name of the plaintiffs and new Khasra No. 509/2 which was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1. Subsequently, by the order of Tahsildar Berla the name of Plaintiffs have been recorded in the Revenue Record. It has been further contended that defendant No. 2 besides defendant No. 1 has also sold p