IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VINEET KOTHARI, GITA GOPI, JJ.
MANUBHAI BHANUBHAI GAJERA & others - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & others - Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1416 of 2014
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3710 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2019
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1416 of 2014
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3710 of 2011
Decided On : 15-02-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Sections 53A,54,40,5 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 3 - Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 - Sections 1A and 2 - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Sections 69,70 - Sale Agreement - Challenge - Appellants-Petitioners claimed to be Agreement Holders under Agreement to Sell allegedly executed in their favour by Tenant of the land in question an Agreement which is said to have been executed on for which Appellants - Petitioners had also filed a Civil Suit for specific performance being Civil which was dismissed by the Civil Court Another Suit for similar purpose was also filed being Civil Suit which came to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code - Thus these Agreement Holders Appellants- Petitioners, could not get a right crystallized in their favour under said Agreement to Sell still they sought to challenge said sale in favour of Respondent which was repelled on ground that Trust was exempt from rigors of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 – Whether with possession or without possession is not a conveyance
Finding of the Court: It is thus clear that a transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance - It is thus clear that a transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance - In absence of a deed of conveyance no right title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred - A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right title or interest in an immovable property - Power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby grantor authorizes the grantee to do acts specified therein on behalf of grantor which when executed will be binding on grantor as if done by him - 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 - Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance - Transactions of nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property - Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property - They cannot be recognized as deeds of title except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records - What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property
Result: Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
1. This intra-Court appeal by Appellants-Petitioners, Manubhai Bhanubhai Gajera and Mohanbhai Veljibhai Tank, now represented by his Legal Heirs, is directed against the order dated 03.12.2014 of the learned Single Judge, by which the challenge laid by the Petitioners to the order of the learned Charity Commissioner, Surat dated 21.08.2009 in Application No.36/42/2005, which order was confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide its order dated 25.01.2011 in Appeal Nos.7 and 9 of 2009, was rejected.
2. The learned Charity Commissioner permitted the sale of the Trust property in question by public auction by the Trust known as “Bai Pirojsha Maneklal Patel Singanporwala English High School for Girls Trust”, a Public Charitable Trust, which property was vested in Surat Parsi Panchayat, a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The sale in question was made in favour of the Respondent No.4, Mr. R.D. Chaudhary, for a open bid sum of Rs.2.72 Crores, as against the Upset Price of Rs.1,02,11,033/-.
3. The present Appellants-Petitioners claimed to be the Agreement Holders under the Agreement to Sell allegedly executed in their favour by the Tenant of the land in question, an Agreement which is said to have been executed on 13.09.2000, for which the Appellants-Petitioners had also filed a Civil Suit for specific performance being Civil Suit No.299 of 2007, which was dismissed by the Civil Court on 23.02.2018. Another Suit for similar purpose was also filed being Civil Suit No.300 of 2007, which came to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on 10.07.2019. Thus, these Agreement Holders, the Appellants- Petitioners, could not get a right crystallized in their favour under the said Agreement to Sell dated 13.09.2000; still, they sought to challenge the said sale in favour of the Respondent No.4, Mr. R.D. Chaudhary, which was repelled on the ground that the Trust was exempt from the rigors of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
4. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the said challenge by dismissing both the petitions, namely, Special Civil Application No.7559 of 2011 filed by the Power of Attorney of one of the Tenants to support the present Appellants-Petitioners and also Special Civil Application No.3710 of 2011 filed by these Agreement Holders themselves with the following observations:-
8.1 Special Civil Application No.7559 of 2011 is filed by one of the many tenants of the property in question, through a Power of Attorney holder, who had chosen not to offer any bid to buy the property in question, in the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. He can not have any better right than a tenant over the property of a Trust. Though in this petition, the right of the tenant is not being adjudicated, with a view to see that what importance needs to be attached to the say of the said tenant, this Court has only prima facie examined his claim and it is found that his title over the property in question is less likely to the accepted by the concerned authorities, in view of the provisions of law in that regard. It is also indicated by the parties that the proceedings in that regard before the Revenue Authorities are already adjudicated against the tenants. While recording this, it is clarified that, this is only for the purpose of the present petition and the rights of the tenant are not being examined in this petition. Suffice it to hold that it is the said tenant, who is challenging the sale in question, and who had also opted out from bidding before the Charity Commissioner for the property in question, inspite of preferential treatment offered in his favour, as evident from the public advertisement which is on record. This petitioner therefore can not be granted any relief in his favour. Special Civil Application No.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.