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

DELHI HIGH COURT
Valmiki, J. Mehta, J.
Shri Ramesh Chand —Appellant
versus
Suresh Chand and Anr. —Respondents
RFA No. 358 of 2000
Decided on 9.4.2012

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal Advocate with Mr. Ravi Wadhwani, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Right to possession of immovable property arises not only from a complete ownership right in property but having a better title or a better entitlement/right to possession of property.

Headnote:(i) Powers of Attorney Act, 1882—Sections 1A and 2—Contract Act , 1872—Section 202—Power of Attorney—Unless there is a proper registered sale deed, title of an immovable property does not pass—Object of giving validity to a power of attorney given for consideration even after death of executants is to ensure that entitlement under such power of attorney remains because same is not a regular or a routine power of attorney but same had elements of a commercial transaction which cannot be allowed to be frustrated on account of death of executants of power of attorney. (Paras 3 and 4)

       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 9—Decision of suit—A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities—In every case, there may appear inconsistencies in depositions of witnesses—However, depositions have to be taken as a whole—Minor inconsistencies which do not affect main substance of case, are to be taken in correct perspective along with other evidences including documentary evidence—Assuming that a witness is not stating correctly in some places does not mean that he is to be held lying generally and hence an unreliable witness. (Para 8)

       (iii) Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 53A—Ownership of property—A right to possession of immovable property arises not only from a complete ownership right in property but having a better title or a better entitlement/right to possession of property than qua the person who is in actual physical possession thereof—Benefit of doctrine of Part performance cannot be given as physical possession of property was not transferred to respondent/plaintiff by his father—However , ownership had devolved upon him in terms of Will executed by his father in his favour—Respondent /plaintiff has better entitlement/title/rights in suit property so as to claim possession from appellant/defendant—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6 , 7 , 11 , 12 and 13)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Valmiki, J. Mehta, J.—This Regular First Appeal was dismissed by a detailed judgment on 28.2.2011. A Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 28.2.2011 and the Supreme Court has remanded the matter back for a fresh decision by its order dated 31.10.2011. The order of the Supreme Court dated 31.10.2011 is based on the issue of the Supreme Court passing the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr.1 and as per which judgment the Supreme Court overruled the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank.2 Since the judgment of this Court dated 28.2.2011 had relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Asha M. Jain (supra), and which judgment was over ruled the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the matter was therefore remanded back to this Court.

2. Before I proceed to dispose of the appeal, and which would turn substantially on the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is necessary to reproduce certain paras of this judgment of the Supreme Court, and which paras are paras 12, 13, 14 and 16, and which read as under:

“12. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of Transfer of Property Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act). According to Transfer of Property Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter.

Scope of Power of Attorney

13. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata3 this Court held:

“A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience.

Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers-of-Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the done to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The done in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee.”

An attorney holder m
















































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