SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
SHRI RAMESH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
SURESH CHAND & ANR. – Respondents
RFA No.358/2000
Decided On : 9th April, 2012

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Ravi Wadhwani, Advocate.
Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

The judgment establishes the rights created under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the irrevocable right of a person holding a power of attorney given for consideration coupled with interest as per Section 202 of the Contract Act, and the devolution of interest pursuant to a Will.

Headnote:

SALES - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54, Section 55, Section 53A; Contract Act, 1872, Section 202; Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 69, 70 - The judgment discusses the requirements of a registered deed of conveyance for the transfer of immovable property, the limitations of power of attorney, and the devolution of interest through a Will. It emphasizes the rights created under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the irrevocable right of a person holding a power of attorney given for consideration coupled with interest as per Section 202 of the Contract Act, and the devolution of interest pursuant to a Will.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent claimed ownership of a property based on documents executed by the father, including an agreement to sell, power of attorney, affidavit, receipt, and Will. The appellant contested the claim, alleging partition and counter-claimed for cancellation of the documents. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent had validly proved the transfer of the property through the documents executed by the father. The court rejected the appellant's arguments of partition and fabrication of documents, and held that the respondent had better entitlement to possession of the property.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the documents, the existence of a partition, and the entitlement to possession of the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The documents created rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, an irrevocable right of a person holding a power of attorney given for consideration coupled with interest as per Section 202 of the Contract Act, and ownership through devolution in terms of a Will. The court also clarified the requirement of proving a Will and rejected the appellant's arguments based on the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to possession of 50% of the property, while the rights of another party remained secure with respect to the remaining 50% share.

JUDGMENT

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal was dismissed by a detailed judgment on 28.2.2011. A Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 28.2.2011 and the Supreme Court has remanded the matter back for a fresh decision by its order dated 31.10.2011. The order of the Supreme Court dated 31.10.2011 is based on the issue of the Supreme Court passing the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC), and as per which judgment the Supreme Court overruled the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Asha M. Jain Vs. Canara Bank 94 (2001) DLT 841. Since the judgment of this Court dated 28.2.2011 had relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Asha M. Jain (supra), and which judgment was over ruled the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the matter was therefore remanded back to this Court.

2. Before I proceed to dispose of the appeal, and which would turn substantially on the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is necessary to reproduce certain paras of this judgment of the Supreme Court, and which paras are paras 12, 13, 14 and 16, and which read as under:-

“12. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of Transfer of Property Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act). According to Transfer of Property Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. Scope of Power of Attorney

13. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata 2005 (12) SCC 77 this Court held: “A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favor of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers-of-Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the done to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The done in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between t








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top