Back
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Bharpur Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mukhtiar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
Since the dispute in question pertains to the same piece of land, originally owned by Sunder Singh, both these RSAs, which arise from different suits, are being decided by a common judgment. The facts in brief of both the appeals are being extracted hereinafter below:
Facts Of RSA No.1379 Of 1987 Titled As Bharpur Singh And Others v. Mukhtiar Singh And Others.
2. The appellant-plaintiff had preferred a civil suit on 19.02.1981 for joint possession of 1/3rd share in the land measuring 147 Kanals 16 Marlas situated in the revenue limits of village Longowal on the averment that Mukhtiar Singh and Sunder Singh were owners to the extent of half share each in land measuring 147 kanals 16 marlas. Sunder Singh used to reside in Burma and he appointed one Shamsher Singh son of Sewa Singh as his attorney vide power of attorney executed in Burma on 20.12.1978. 1/3rd share of the land in dispute was sold by Sunder Singh, through his power of attorney holder Shamsher Singh, in favour of the Rattan Kaur wife of Sewa Singh and plaintiffs Bharpur Singh and Thakar Singh sons of Sewa Singh i.e mother and brothers of Shamsher Singh-the power of attorney holder,
The presumption of validity for a General Power of Attorney executed outside India is rebuttable, requiring the proponent to dispel surrounding suspicious circumstances.
An agent must act in the principal's best interests; unauthorized sales executed under a power of attorney without consent are fraudulent.
The agency created in favor of the defendant continued to remain in force even after the death of the principal, and the registered documents carry a presumption that they were genuinely executed.
(1) [By Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah]]Title Declaratory Suit – When plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of two sale deeds, it was for plaintiffs to prove even execution of sale deeds – Defendants were....
Agreement to sell land barred by 10-year transfer prohibition after proprietary rights conferment is unenforceable for specific performance, but earnest money refundable with interest upon proof of p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the death of parties does not necessarily render a suit infructuous, especially when the relief sought is independent of the deceased parties.....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
