Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Nirmal Singh Sehmbey – Appellant
Versus
Kuldip Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. authority in powers of attorney must be exercised for the principal's benefit. (Para 1 , 3 , 24) |
| 2. the necessity of consent in sales is paramount. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 33) |
| 3. court affirms due diligence and rightful ownership. (Para 18 , 19 , 32) |
| 4. sales must adhere strictly to the powers stipulated. (Para 20 , 28 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final ruling dismisses the appeal based on merit. (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
CM-2673-C-2017
1. This is an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the 'CPC') read with Section 151 CPC for permission to implead the applicant namely Sukhmander Singh son of Sh. Bhag Singh as a party/appellant No.2.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is a subsequent purchaser having purchased the land vide three registered sale deeds dated 26.12.2002, 26.05.2003 and 26.05.2003. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party for, Kuldip Singh from whom he had purchased the land was already a party to the suit and the land was sold during the pendency of the lis.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the application, the same is dismissed.
RSA No. 4577 of 2014
The present appeal is directed against
An agent must act in the principal's best interests; unauthorized sales executed under a power of attorney without consent are fraudulent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution of a Power of Attorney and the validity of sale deeds, as well as the consideration of the issue of limitati....
Contracts involving minors are voidable, and agreements lacking informed consent due to undue influence or coercion are rendered invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must prove the execution of the agreement for specific performance, and the validity of a sale-deed executed by a power of attor....
A power of attorney does not confer title to property; fraudulent sales executed by an agent without the principal's consent are invalid under the Benami Transactions Act.
Registered Power of Attorney presumed valid under S.114(e) Evidence Act unless fraud specifically pleaded and proved; lack of Tamil literacy and attesting witness ignorance insufficient to invalidate....
The court established that the General Power of Attorney was fictitious and the sale deed executed under it was null and void, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the defendants under Section 8....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of attorney holder has the right to exercise the power given in the power of attorney but cannot use such power for personal benefit....
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
