Ownership claims based solely on Power of Attorney and Will are insufficient without a registered sale deed; court reviews only the plaint and related documents for cause of action without delving into merits.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

1. Present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC read with Section 151 CPC against the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application of the Petitioner herein filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. It was averred in the application by the Petitioner herein that the plaintiff/Respondent herein had only claimed right to recover possession on the strength of alleged Power of Attorney in favour of one Shri Ajit Mittal and an alleged Will made by him. It was further averred that Power of Attorney being an extension of the agency expires on the death of either the donee of Power of Attorney or the donor of the Power of Attorney and thus on the death of Shri Ajit Mittal, no Power of Attorney exists. Thus, the plaint deserves to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Petitioner had also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., SLP (C) 13917/2009 dated 11.10.2011 to contend that no title or ownership to an immovable property can pass on the basis of a Power of Attorney in the absence of a registered sale deed with respect to the property.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff had contended that late Shri Ajit Mittal, husband of the plaintiff, had purchased the suit property through its erstwhile owner Smt. Prakashwati on 08.12.2000 vide registered GPA, Will and Receipt and Agreement to Sell and the possession was handed over to him. The GPA was irrevocable and thus subsists even after her death in terms of provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It was also contended by the plaintiff that the defendants therein were mere licensees in the suit property and had been allowed to stay therein by late Shri Mittal out of love and affection. They have no locus to thus challenge the title of late Shri Mittal in the suit property. Plaintiff had also averred in the reply to the application that Smt. Prakashwati expired on 02.07.2003 and in terms of the Will executed by her, the property devolved upon late Shri Mittal.

4. The learned Trial Court having heard the parties has vide the impugned order dismissed the application of the Petitioner herein finding no merits in the same, principally on the ground that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to see the contents of the plaint and the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Having perused the plaint and the documents filed by the Petitioner, the Trial Court was of the view that it was a matter of trial whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession and other reliefs sought therein. Reliance was placed on the judgement of this Court in the case of Hardip Kaur vs. Kailash and Anr., 193 (2012) DLT 168. Relevant part of the impugned order is as under:

"7. Perusal of the file would show that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction. It is mentioned in the plaint that her husband Sh. Ajit Mittal had legally purchased the suit property from Smt. Prakashwati on 08.12.2000 vide documents in the nature of GPA, Will, receipt. It is further mentioned in the plaint that her husband expired on 28.12.2017 leaving behind a Will dated 24.05.2014 duly executed by him in favour of the plaintiff and probate proceedings in respect of the said will are pending before the court of Ld. ADJ. In the reply filed on behalf of