Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Rur Singh (since deceased) through his LRs - Appellants
Versus
Kashmir Kaur and others - Respondents
RSA No.3533 of 1987 (O&M), Cross Objection No.5-C of 1988 and other connected appeal.
Decided on : 02-02-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a registered sale deed executed through a Power of Attorney can only be set aside on limited grounds and not on the basis of assumptions and presumptions.
Headnote:
registered sale deed - Power of Attorney - [General Power of Attorney, Sale of Property Act] - The court upheld the registered sale deed executed through a Power of Attorney of the owner, emphasizing that a sale deed can only be set aside on limited grounds and not on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The court also highlighted the importance of proving fraud in accordance with the Contract Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the ownership of a property and the validity of sale deeds executed by the attorney of the owner. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court partly accepted the appeal, upholding some sale deeds while setting aside others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registered sale deed executed through a Power of Attorney cannot be set aside on the ground of inadequacy of the sale consideration. It also emphasized that a sale deed can only be set aside on limited grounds and not on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The court upheld the validity of the sale deeds executed by the attorney of the owner.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the sale deeds executed by the attorney of the property owner, the adequacy of sale consideration, and the alleged fictitious transaction to defraud the principal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that a registered sale deed can only be set aside on limited grounds, and the importance of proving fraud in accordance with the Contract Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal No.3533 of 1987 was allowed, while Regular Second Appeal No.2542 of 1988 and Cross Objection No.5-C of 1988 filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No.3533 of 1987, Cross Objection No.5-C of 1988 and Regular Second Appeal No.2542 of 1988, all arising out of the same suit. Parties shall be referred to by their names.
2. In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise for determination:-
(i) Whether a registered sale deed executed through a Power of Attorney of the owner can be set aside on the ground of inadequacy of the sale consideration?
(ii) Whether a registered sale deed can be set aside by the Court only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions?
3. It is not in dispute that Sadha Singh, unmarried and issueless, was the owner of the property in dispute. Plaintiff No.1 Kashmira Singh, is a son of brother of Sadha Singh, whereas defendant no.1 is son of another brother of Sadha Singh. Kashmira Singh and Amar Kaur filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are owners of the land measuring 16 kanals 6 marlas and the sale deeds executed by defendant no.1 Roor Singh claiming to be attorney of Sadha Singh are null and void and without consideration.
4. Learned trial court decreed the suit, whereas learned first appellate court has partly accepted the appeal and out of two sale deeds executed by Roor Singh, one sale deed executed in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3, namely, Kala Singh and Narinder Singh, dated 01.07.1981 has been upheld. Learned first appellate Court has found that late Sh. Sadha Singh had appointed Roor Singh as his attorney through registered General Power of Attorney, dated 23.06.1981. Learned first appellate court has held that execution of the General Power of Attorney by late Sh. Sadha Singh is proved from the statement of Roor Singh, defendant no.1 and Kehar Singh, Lambardar, attesting witness who has been examined as DW3. The General Power of Attorney is proved to have been executed by Sadha Singh with free will and volition. Both the courts have further upheld the registered Will-testamentary document executed by late Sh. Sadha Singh in favour of plaintiffs dated 20.10.1982. Learned first appellate Court has set aside the sale deed executed by Roor Singh in favour of Chhindo, defendant no.4 on the following grounds:-
(i) Late Sh. Sadha Singh through his General Power of Attorney has executed two sale deeds, one in favour of Kala Singh and Narinder Singh with respect to land measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas for total sale consideration of Rs.14,000/-, whereas the second sale deed executed through attorney with respect to land measuring 8 kanals 15 marlas on the same day is for Rs.9,000/-.
(ii) The relationship between the principal and the agents are fiduciary and the sale in favour of Chhindo who was alleged to be widow of the brother of Roor Singh appears to be fictitious transaction in order to defraud the principal.
(iii) Chhindo and Roor Singh are living as husband and wife after the death of Bawa Singh and two sons were born from that relationship.
5. Now the stage is set for considering the questions of law.
QUESTION NO.(i)
Whether a registered sale deed executed through a Power of Attorney of the owner can be set aside on the ground of inadequacy of the sale consideration?
QUESTION NO. (ii)
Whether a registered sale deed can be set aside by the Court only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions?
6. The learned first appellate court has found that late Sh. Sadha Singh executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Roor Singh, defendant no.1, registered on 23.06.1981. In the General Power of Attorney, Roor Singh was given power to sell the property. Roor Singh executed two sale deeds as attorney of late Sh. Sadha Singh on 01.07.1981, one in favour of Kala Singh and Narinder Singh, whereas other in favour of Chhindo, defendant no.4. The sale deed in favour of Kala Singh and Narinder Singh was with respect to 7 kanals 11 marlas for a sum of Rs.14,000/-, whereas in favour of Chindo it is with respect to 8 kanals 15 marlas for Rs.
