The main legal point established is the recognition of rights created through Power of Attorney by courts, as well as the limitations and requirements for valid property transactions under the Transfer of Property Act.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 21.2.2012. No one is present for the parties although it is 12.45 P.M. I have, therefore, perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 1.7.2004 dismissing the suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The suit pertains to a property admeasuring 2.5 biswa, i.e. 125 sq. yds., situated in khasra No. 512/1, Village Gadaipur, Tehsil Mehruali, New Delhi. Before proceeding further, I may note that defendants were ex parte in the trial Court. No written statement was filed on their behalf. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents/defendants, yet the trial Court dismissed the suit.

3. The trial Court has made the following observations for dismissing the suit:-

“13. I am of the opinion that even if Santu had some limited interest in the suit property for residence, he could not transfer the same to Goverdhan as it would contravene the implied terms of allotment of said plot which was granted to him under issue or licence under the Government Scheme meant to ameliorate the condition of weaker sections of the society. Such a land could not be transferred to Goverdhan by way of a purported General Power of Attorney Ex.P.1. Secondly Sh. Goverdhan has not claimed that he is the transferee owner or inheritor of that property. He is claiming that he is pursuing the suit for Santu and the best evidecen could be the testimony of Santu himself. Thirdly the right of Santu standsd extinguished not only because of the breach of implied terms of liase/license but also due to aflux of time because his lease/license stands expired after 9 years of grant i.e. 28.2.82 and much before the instant suit has been instituted on 25.11.94. There is no document on record which suggest that Santu ever remained in possession of the suit property. Mr. Goverdhan has brought on record the documents which suggest that he had taken electricity connection/water connection in his name and Ex.P.3 which is dated 29.5.84 unequivocally goes to suggests that Mr. Goverdhan is the ower/occupier of the suit property since inception.

14. I have reached to the conclusion that Goverdhan has no locus standi qua the suit property and thus had no right to institute the instant suit and much less in the name of Sh. Santu purporting to be his attorney. Becaue he was well aware that he is in unauthorised occupation of the said Government land allotted to Santu he moved the instant application in the name of Sh. Santu who was the allottee of the suit plot.”

I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the trial Court, inasmuch as, the appellant/plaintiff proved on record that being a poor villager he alongwith others was allotted the land through the Gram Pradhan.

4. The Gram Up-Pradhan/Sh. Hari Singh who, by filing an affidavit in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, deposed that the said plot of 125 sq. yds. was given under the 20 Point Programme for rehabilitation of the poor villagers, including the appellant/plaintiff. A copy of the L.R. Form No. 37 was proved and exhibited as Ex.P.4. The receipt in this regard was issued by the village Pradhan to Sh. Santu on 28.2.1982 which was towards the acknowledgment of having received `45/- as lease rent for nine years. This document is also again exhibited as Ex.P.4, though wrongly for the exhibit number.

5. The suit was instituted by the owner-Sh. Santu through his attorney, namely, one Sh. Goverdhan and at that stage Sh. Goverdhan must have purchased some rights in the suit land by means of a General Power of Attorney which was Ex.P.1. There are no disputes between Sh. Santu and the attorney-Sh.Goverdhan and in accordance with Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872, rights created through Power of Attorney are recognized by Courts, including