Power of Attorney--Execution of sale deed by power of attorney holder after death of original allottee is not valid.

Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral)- Defendant No.5 is in appeal against the judgment of reversal, whereby suit for mandatory injunction filed by respondents No.1 to 5 was decreed by the learned First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned First Appellate Court in para 2 of its impugned judgment, are that the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra since deceased. Defendants No.1 and 2 advertised industrial plots in Industrial Estate Phase-II, Yamuna Nagar in the year 1978. Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra applied for the allotment of a plot and also deposited Rs.5,000/- by way of bank draft No.0043 dated 30.09.1978 being 20% initial money for allotment of the same. Defendants No.1 and 2 allotted plot No.40 to Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra vide letter dated 01.12.1978. Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra has deposited full and final payment of the plot and then he became absolute owner of the same. Thereafter, Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra had fallen ill and he could not complete the project within the stipulated period. The plot was resumed but on the application of Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra, it was restored to him vide letter dated 15.01.1992 on the same terms and conditions. Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra was not keeping good health due to which he was unable to look after the plot and to start the project. He appointed defendant No.3 as his attorney vide General Power of Attorney dated 09.03.1992. Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra expired on 17.09.1993 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his sole legal heirs to succeed to his estate. They have become absolute owners in equal shares of movable and immovable properties left by Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra. They informed defendants No.1 and 2 regarding death of Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra and requested to transfer the plot in their names but in vain. On 05.11.1997, the plaintiffs again wrote a letter to defendant No.1 to transfer the plot in their names, but to no avail. The plaintiffs got served a legal notice upon defendants No.1 and 2 but they did not take any action. Plaintiff No.1 then contacted the office of defendant No.1 where she was informed that the case for transfer of plot is under consideration and when the competent authority would pass any order, they would be informed accordingly within short time. On 20.11.2012, plaintiff No.1 again visited the office of defendant No.1 and she was informed that one Pawan Kumar had applied for allotment of the plot in his favour on the ground that defendant No.3 had written to the office of defendant No.1 for re-allotment. She was also informed about the execution of General Power of Attorney by Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra in favour of defendant No.3. Plaintiff No.1 came to know that defendant No.3 on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 09.03.1992 had entered into an agreement to sell the portion of plot No.40 for a total sum of Rs.90,000/- with defendant No.4 on 21.03.1992 and had received earnest money of Rs.20,000/- from defendant No.4 in cash and Rs.50,000/- through cheque dated 21.03.1992. The date for registration of sale deed was fixed for 21.09.1992. After the death of Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra, power of attorney dated 09.03.1992 stands automatically revoked and cancelled. The legal representative of Dr. Raj Kumar Sapra never authorised the attorney holder to continue as such at any point of time and as such defendant No.3 has no right to alienate or transfer the plot in dispute. The plaintiffs have legal right to get the said plot transferred in their names from defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs requested defendants No.1 and 2 to transfer the plot in question in their names but in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present suit.

3. Having been put to notice, defendants appeared and filed their written statement. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: -

1. Whether the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Dr. R.K. Sapra are entitled to mandatory inju