IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Puneet Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Shri Sunil V Gupta & others - Respondents
First Appeal No. 147 of 2022
Decided on : 09-06-2023
Cancellation of Gift Deed - Specific Relief Act - [Section 31 Specific Relief Act] - The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for cancellation of a gift deed, holding that the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title, or interest over the suit land on the strength of an unregistered agreement to sell, as the agreement to sell was executed by a person who had no authority to deal with the property. The court also noted that the agreement to sell was unregistered and not enforceable, and the plaintiff's claim for possession over the suit property was not supported by the agreement to sell.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a gift deed, claiming that the defendant executed an unregistered agreement to sell in his favor for a plot of land. The plaintiff alleged that he paid a substantial amount as advance for purchasing the land and sought cancellation of the gift deed executed by the defendant in favor of another party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title, or interest over the suit land on the strength of the unregistered agreement to sell. The court also noted that the agreement to sell was executed by a person who had no authority to deal with the property and was unenforceable due to non-registration. Additionally, the plaintiff's claim for possession over the suit property was not supported by the agreement to sell.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff acquired any right, title, or interest over the suit land on the strength of the unregistered agreement to sell, and whether the gift deed executed by the defendant could be cancelled based on the plaintiff's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's suit for cancellation of the gift deed could only succeed if the plaintiff had established a prima facie title over the suit property. However, the unregistered agreement to sell relied upon by the plaintiff did not confer any title, and the person who executed the agreement had no authority to deal with the property. The court also noted that the agreement to sell was unenforceable due to non-registration, and the plaintiff's claim for possession was not supported by the agreement.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal for cancellation of the gift deed.
JUDGMENT :
This is plaintiff’s appeal under Section 96 CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, in Original Suit No. 55 of 2017, whereby his suit for cancellation of gift deed was dismissed with cost.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the year 2017 under Section 31 Specific Relief Act with the averment that defendant no.3, on instructions from defendant no. 2, executed an unregistered agreement to sell in his favour in respect of a plot of land situate in Village Tapovan, Patti Dhamandsyu, District Tehri Garhwal. In the plaint, he stated that defendant no. 1 is owner of the said land while defendant no. 2 was his power of attorney holder.
(ii) As per the plaint allegation, plaintiff paid Rs.14,00,000/- in cash to defendant no. 3 and the remaining amount was to be paid to defendant no. 3 upto 15.07.2006; defendant no. 3 had assured him that sale deed would be executed in his favour before 15.07.2006, however, the deadline for paying balance sale consideration was extended in view of pendency of litigation, by another agreement executed on 15.07.2006 wherein it was mentioned that sale deed would be executed after vacation of the stay granted by Hon’ble Court. It was further pleaded that when sale deed was not executed by defendant nos. 2 & 3, even after decision in the pending litigation, plaintiff sent a notice for executing sale deed, but, defendant nos. 2 and 3 did not give any reply and when he personally met defendant no. 3, then he started misbehaving with him and threatened him of dire consequences and ultimately, at the instance of plaintiff, a criminal case was registered against defendant no. 3 in police station Muni-ki-Reti, under Section 420 & 506 IPC, in which charge-sheet is filed and case is pending before Judicial Magistrate, Narendranagar.
(iii) It was further stated in the plaint that a gift deed in respect of land in question has been executed by defendant no. 2, as power of attorney holder of defendant no. 1, in favour of defendant no. 4. In paragraph no. 14 of the plaint, plaintiff further stated that apprehending encroachment upon the land in question, he filed a suit for injunction which is registered as civil suit no. 49 of 2017, and is pending.
(iv) Based on these pleadings, plaintiff sought cancellation of registered gift deed executed by defendant nos. 1 & 2 in favour of defendant no. 4, which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Devprayag on 12.06.2015.
3. Learned Trial Court issued notice to the defendants. Since defendants were not represented on the date fixed, therefore, on 05.05.2022, learned trial Court ordered that the suit shall be proceeded ex-parte against the defendants.
4. Learned Trial Court considered the pleadings made in the plaint and also the statement made by plaintiff as PW-1 and dismissed the suit, vide judgment dated 07.06.2022 by holding that defendant no. 3 had no right to execute agreement to sell in respect of a property owned by defendant no. 1 as only the owner of property (defendant no. 1) or power of attorney of the owner (defendant no. 2) were competent to execute an agreement to sell. Learned Trial Court observed that no one can transfer a title better than what he has. Learned Trial Court held that there is nothing on record to show that the power of attorney (defendant no. 2) instructed defendant no. 3 to enter into agreement to sell with the plaintiff, on his behalf. Learned Trial Court further observed that if power of attorney is executed by owner of a property, then the power of attorney holder alone will have the authority to deal with the property, however, defendant no. 3 is neither owner nor power of attorney, thus, he does not have any rig
A.K. Lakshmipathy (died) by LR v. R.S. Pannalal Hiralal Lahoti Charitable Trust
Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited v. Regency Mahavir Properties and others
Union of India and others v. Vasavi Cooperative Society Ltd. and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered agreement to sell does not confer any right, title, or interest over the property, and the person executing the agreement must....
Point of law: stoic silence on the part of the plaintiffs for more than 2 years after executing the power of attorney and their own sister being the party to all the subsequent transactions, the thir....
(1) It is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or to a decree to ask for its cancellation.(2) Filing a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and seeking a declaration tha....
A unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed without the donee's consent is void ab initio, reaffirming that rights pass to the donee upon valid execution of the gift.
A lawsuit for cancellation of a sale deed can be maintained in civil court when the plaintiff has prima facie title, despite the sale deed being based on fraud, as jurisdiction under the U.P. Zaminda....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.