SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(All) 3546

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Daya Shanker (Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :- C.K. Parekh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:- Vinod Kumar Dwivedi and Rahul Pandey, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

  1. A registered power of attorney can only be canceled through a registered deed. The court emphasized that cancellation by unregistered documents or notices, such as notices under certificate of posting, is not legally sufficient to revoke a registered power of attorney (!) (!) .

  2. The sale-deed executed by the power of attorney holder was found to be valid, as the authority under the registered power of attorney was never legally canceled or withdrawn before the execution of the sale-deed (!) (!) .

  3. The burden of proof regarding cancellation of the power of attorney and the validity of the sale-deed lies with the party asserting such cancellation. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the power of attorney had been canceled before the sale-deed was executed (!) (!) .

  4. Service of notice for cancellation via registered post or certificate of posting was not conclusively proved, and thus, cannot be deemed legally effective to cancel the power of attorney (!) .

  5. The court reaffirmed that a registered document affecting rights in immovable property can only be canceled by a registered deed, and not by unregistered notices or other informal means (!) .

  6. The appellate courts correctly appreciated the evidence and legal provisions, and their findings that the sale-deed was executed under valid authority and that the power of attorney was not canceled are well-founded and cannot be disturbed in a second appeal (!) (!) .

  7. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the sale-deed executed under the authority of a valid, uncancelled registered power of attorney remains legally effective and binding (!) .

Please let me know if you need further assistance or specific legal interpretations.


JUDGMENT

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. –

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. It is admitted case between the parties that plaintiff no.-1 had executed a registered general power of attorney (GPA) dated 9.2.1988 of his property in favour of defendant no.-1 Jitendra Kumar (son of Laxman Prasad). Then defendant no.-1 had executed sale-deed of disputed property on the basis of said power of attorney in favour of defendants no. 2, 3 and 4. Admittedly, defendants no. 2 and 3 are sons of Laxman Prasad and real brother of defendant no.-1 Jitendra Kumar. It is also admitted that defendant no.-4 Sharda Dutt is real father-in-law of defendant no.-1 Jitendra Kumar. It is also admitted that on the basis of power of attorney, the sale-deed was executed on 3.8.1991, but it was not registered that day, and its registration proceeding was performed and completed on 26.2.1992. It is proved from the evidences, although it was not admitted by defendants, that plaintiff has sent registered notice dated 3.10.1991 to defendant no.-1 for cancellation of registered power of attorney, which was served on him.

3. Plaintiffs had filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 3.8.1991 e



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top