An agent must act in the principal's best interests; unauthorized sales executed under a power of attorney without consent are fraudulent.

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 the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2004 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagraon, dismissing the suit filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff, was allowed and the suit was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff (Kuldeep Singh) is a resident of the United States of America. He was the joint owner in possession of land measuring 49 kanals 10 out of which 43 kanals (fully described in the plaint) was situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhumal, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana and 6 kanals 10 marlas in Village Jandi, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed land-I and disputed land-II'). He executed a general power of attorney on 19.06.2001 in favour of defendant No.l (Balwinder Singh), who was his brother-in-law (wife's brother). As per the plaintiff, the said power of attorney had been executed for management of the properties owned by the plaintiff. However, defendant No.l, with the intention to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff, alienated the disputed land-I in favour of defendant No.2 (Avtar Singh), who was none else than the brother-in-law (wife's brother of defendant No.l) vide registered sale deed dated 02.07.2001 for a purported sale consideration of Rs.6,45,000/-. Similarly, he executed a sale deed dated 05.07.2001 qua the disputed land-II again in favour of Avtar Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,18,500/-. Avtar Singh further sold the disputed land-II to defendant No.3 (Nirmal Singh) (brother of the plaintiff-Kuldeep Singh) vide registered sale deed dated 22.07.2002. He also executed a sale deed dated 22.07.2002 for land measuring 14 kanals 8 marl as out of the disputed land-I again in favour of defendant No.3 (Nirmal Singh).

It is the case of the plaintiff that when his wife Amarjit Kaur came to India in July 2002, she came to know about the sale deeds having been executed by his own brother (defendant No.l). Accordingly, a suit for declaration that the plaintiff was the joint owner in possession of the disputed lands and further that the sale deeds were illegal, null and void and without consideration was filed on 24.12.2002.

4. The defendants chose not to appear despite service and were accordingly proceeded against ex parte.

5. In the ex-parte evidence, plaintiff examined three witnesses which included his wife Amarjit Kaur, who stepped into the witness box as PW3.

6. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff leading to the filing of an appeal which was allowed by the Court of Addl. Distri