The validity of a sale deed, the applicability of Section 215 of the Contract Act, the requirement of a no objection certificate, and the adequacy of the sale consideration were the central legal points established in the judgment.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

CM-4857-C-2018

1. Prayer in the application is for impleading Smt. Tripta Rani as a party respondent being subsequent vendee during the pendency of the appeal. Nirmal Kumar and Neelam Rani, respondents No.1 and 2 are alleged to have transferred the property. Although, this application has been opposed, however, taking into consideration that there is assignment of rights during the pendency of the appeal, Smt. Tripta Rani is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.5.

2. Application is allowed.

Main Case

3. Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

4. Plaintiff-Smt. Swarn Kanta and her son late Sh. Mohit Singla were running a business in partnership under the name of M/s Canrod Steels. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that she along with her son entered into a new partnership with Tarsem Chand Jindal and Harbans Lal. Hence, a fresh partnership deed was executed on 10.11.1987 Ex.DW-3/B on the record. It was specifically noted in the partnership deed that the existing partners were facing financial crises to run the existing business smoothly and have agreed to admit Sh. Tarsem Jindal and Sh. Harbans Lal into partnership. A new partnership deed is signed by Mohit Singla and Swarn Kanta.

5. On 11.11.1987, Smt. Swarn Kanta and late Sh. Mohit Singla executed three documents.

1. A full payment agreement to sell in favour of Nirmal Kumar and Neelam Rani agreeing to sell shop-cum-flat No. 19, Sector 19, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs.1,92,000/-. It was also specifically mentioned in the agreement to sell that the sellers i.e. Smt. Swarn Kanta and late Sh. Mohit Singla have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Tarsem Jindal which shall not be revoked or cancelled. The agreement to sell runs into two pages and both the pages have been signed by Smt. Swarn Kanta and late Sh. Mohit Singla. On the reverse of first page, a separate receipt of Rs.1,92,000/- has been executed and Smt. Swarn Kanta and late Sh. Mohit Singla have also signed in a manner that half of the signatures are on the paper and half are on the adhesive revenue stamp affixed.

2. Smt. Swarn Kanta and late Sh. Mohit Singla also execute a General Power of Attorney appointing Sh. Tarsem Jindal as Power of Attorney holder. In the General Power of Attorney, it is specifically written that the Power of Attorney holder shall be entitled to sell, transfer the property and enter into any agreement to sell and execute/sign the sale/transfer deed.

3. An affidavit was sworn by Smt. Swarn Kanta and late Sh. Mohit Singla which was got attested from the Oath Commissioner wherein it is acknowledged by them that they have sold the property to Nirmal Kumar and Neelam Rani and received the full amount of consideration and delivered possession. Both of them also admit that they have executed a General Power of Attorney agreement and an affidavit and the said documents are irrevocable.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney, Tarsem Chand executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. Nirmal Kumar and Mrs. Neelam Rani (his sister and brother-in-law) on 22.02.1989.

7. Smt. Swarn Kanta filed a suit for declaration claiming that the aforesaid sale deed is illegal, null, void, invalid, ineffective and is of no consequences and the plaintiff continues to be exclusive owner of the property. In the plaint, she admitted that Tarsem Jindal was appointed/constituted as General Attorney, however, such Attorney was only to run and manage the business and to raise loan for the firm, if necessary. It is further pleaded that General Power of Attorney was never intended to authorize sale of SCF and power to sell has been fraudulently got inserted by Tarsem Chand. The execution of the full payment agreement to sell, receipt and affidavit were not disclosed in the plaint. It will be signi