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

1966 Supreme(P&H) 247

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.C.Pandit, J.
Jugraj Singh
Versus
Jaswant Singh
Second Appeal No. 399 of 1966,
Decided On : DECEMBER 14, 1966

A power of attorney that is not properly executed or authenticated can be ratified by the principal through a subsequent power of attorney, validating all actions taken under the earlier power of attorney.

Headnote:

REGISTRATION ACT - POWER OF ATTORNEY - AUTHENTICATION - NOTARY PUBLIC - RATIFICATION - VALIDITY OF SALE DEED - PRESENTATION FOR REGISTRATION - PROPER PERSON - SECTION 32(A) - SECTION 33(1)(E).

Fact of the Case:

Vernon Seth Chotia, residing in America, executed a special power of attorney in favor of Kartar Singh Chawla to sell a piece of land in India. Chawla executed a sale deed on behalf of Chotia, but the registration of the sale deed was challenged due to the alleged invalidity of the power of attorney and improper presentation for registration.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the power of attorney, though not executed before or authenticated by a Notary Public as required by Section 85 of the Evidence Act, was later ratified by Chotia through a subsequent power of attorney. The ratification validated the earlier power of attorney and all actions taken thereunder, including the execution of the sale deed.

Issues: 1. Whether the power of attorney executed by Chotia was valid and properly authenticated. 2. Whether Kartar Singh Chawla was a proper person to present the sale deed for registration under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 85 of the Evidence Act does not prescribe a specific form of authentication for a power of attorney. The attestation by the Notary Public in the subsequent power of attorney, stating that Chotia had executed and signed the document after admitting its contents, constituted sufficient authentication. 2. The expression "some person executing" in Section 32(a) of the Registration Act refers to the actual executant of the document, not the principal who executes through an agent. Kartar Singh Chawla, who had actually executed the sale deed, was a proper person to present it for registration.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the sale deed and the registration process.

Judgment

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. One Bagh Singh was the owner of the land in dispute, measuring about 371 Kanals and situate in village Sangrana, district Ferozepore. In 1923, he mortgaged the same with possession for Rs. 5,500/- in favour of Ran Jang Singh. Later on, he migrated to America and died there. According to Jug Raj Singh and his brother Balbir Singh sons of Ran Jang Singh, plaintiffs, he was succeeded by his widow and two sons including Vernon Seth Chotia. On 30-5-1968, the said Chotia sold this land through his mukhtiar khas Shri Kartar Singh Chawla to Jaswamt Singh and 7 others, defendants, for Rs. 24,000, Subsequently Ran Jang Singh also died and he was succeeded by his two sons, Jugraj Singh and Balbir Singh. In June 1963, Jaswant Singh and others made an application for the redemption of this land under Section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913.

On 5th of August, 1968, the Collector granted this application and ordered redemption on payment of Rs. 5,500/- to the plaintiffs. On 7th of August, 1963, the plaintiffs instituted a suit under Section 1,2 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913, for a declaration that the defendants were not competent to redeem the land and the order of the Collector dated 5th of August 1963 was void and illegal. Their allegations were that the sale effected on 30th of May 1963 in favour of the defendants was not valid, inasmuch as it was not made through a properly authorised agent of Vernon Seth Chotia and, consequently they had no right to redeem the land with the result that the order passed by the Collector on 5th of August 1963 was illegal. It was claimed by them that they were still the mortgagees of the land and the defendants were not entitled to get possession from them under the order of the Collector According to them, the defendants were liable to pay them certain amounts on account of taxes including land revenue, etc., in the event of the redemption of the land.

2. The suit was contested by the defendants, inter-alia, on the ground that Vernon Seth Chotia had sold the land to them through his duly authorised attorney, Shri Kartar Singh Chawla, that the said sale was valid and for consideration and that the order of the Collector was in accordance with law. It was also averred by them that the plaintiffs had not paid any taxes to the Government at any rate, they were not entitled to recover anything more thans the mortgage amount from them under the conditions of the mortgage.

3. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that Shri Kartar Singh Chawla was the duly authorised agent of Vernon Seth Chotia and had validly sold the land to the defendants. That being so, the order of the Collector dated 5th of August 1963 was legal and binding on the plaintiffs. It was also found by him that there was nothing on the record to show that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the taxes etc., paid by them from the defendants. The plaintiffs could withdraw the mortgage amount of Rs, 5,500/- already deposited by the defendants in the Court of the Collector, Muktsar. The plaintiffs, were not still the mortgagees of the suit-land. On these findings, the suit was dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs went in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepore who rejected the same after having affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Against this, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

5. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants" was that the sale effected in favour of the defendants by Vernon Seth Chotia was not valid in law, inasmuch as it had not been proved on the record that Shri Kartar Singh Chawla was the properly authorised agent of the said Vernon Seth Chotia,

6. The facts relevant for the decision of this point are these. Since Vernon Seth Chotia was residing in America, he sent a special power of attorney dated 6th of September 1961 P/2, in favour of Shri Kartar singh Chawla empowering
















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