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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1695

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Satyavrat Verma, J
Smt. Surjit Behl – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jaspal Kaur Bhatia – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. P. Verma
For the Respondents: Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Ms. Swati Agrawal, Ms. Richa Dwivedi

A sale executed under a power of attorney can be partially annulled if it exceeds the granted authority, but claims of undue influence require specific pleadings; mere non-payment of consideration does not invalidate a sale deed.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - Section 31 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 54 and 32 - Cancellation of sale deed - Power of Attorney holder exceeded authority by selling land beyond specified area - Trial Court annulled excess sale while upholding authority for remaining land - Intention of parties and existence of pending litigation considered in judgment. (Paras 24, 27, 28)

(B) Limitation - Suit filed to challenge sale deed on ground of exceeding authority - Cross-examination shows knowledge of sale - Prior litigation affecting land's status - Suit deemed vexatious without specific pleadings of undue influence or fraud. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 36)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed by her Power of Attorney, claiming the agent sold land beyond their authority. The trial court partly allowed the cancellation for the excess land while asserting the valid transaction for the authorized portion. The defendants claimed payment of sale consideration and possession. (Paras 1, 2, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that while the trial court justly annulled sale concerning land sold beyond the Power of Attorney, the overall sale remained valid. The lack of particular pleadings undermined the plaintiff's claims against the defendants regarding payment. (Paras 7, 23, 24, 28)

Issues: Can a sale deed be canceled for exceeding the Power of Attorney's authority? Was there sufficient evidence of payment and possession? Are the claims for undue influence and fraud adequately pleaded? (Para 12)

Ratio Decidendi: A sale exceeding the scope of Power of Attorney can be partially annulled; undue influence claims must have precise pleadings, and non-payment of sale consideration does not automatically void the sale. Different legal precedents considered. (Paras 5, 6, 28)

Result: Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned II Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.91 - A / 2014 whereby the suit was partly allowed.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaration of title along - with injunction against the respondents. As per the plaintiff, the land of 0.094 hectares bearing Kh.No.20/34 equivalent to 10115 sqft which was earlier numbered as 20/31 20/18 in revenue records was purchased by the appellant by sale deed dated 25.04.1982 and since then the plaintiff claimed that he is in possession and ownership of the said land. It was pleaded that in the year 2003 two persons tried to disturb the possession for which a Civil Suit No.2 - A / 2009 was filed against Ravindra Kaur and others, which is pending. The plaintiff contended that she is an old lady residing at Indore and since she was tired of litigation as such in respect of sale of remaining of land of Kh.No. 20/34 admeasuring 7800 sqft, she gave a power of attorney to defendant No.2 Satpal Singh Bhatia by registered general power of attorney dated 06.09.2008. During the course of litigation of Civil Suit No.2 - A / 2009 (Surjieet Kaur v. Ravinder Kaur and others) a direction was issued for demarcation in respect of part of other land and accordingly when the commissioner' s report was filed along - with the copy of sale deed 31.03.2010, for the first time she came to know that defendant / respondent No.2 herein Satpal Singh Bhatia has sold the entire land of 10115 sqft to his mother Smt. Jaspal Kaur Bhatia (since deceased). Thereafter certain police reports were made and cancellation of sale deed was agreed to be done but eventually it was not done. Eventually on 29.05.2014 a notice was served for cancellation of the sale deed. It was further contended that the sale consideration was not paid to the plaintiff / appellant and by the Power of Attorney dated 6.09.2008 only 7800 sqft of land was entitled to be sold whereas the defendant has sold the entire land of 10115 sqft by sale deed dated 31.03.2010, which is void. It was further contended that the Power of Attorney was confined only to sell 7800 sqft whereas the remaining 2315 sqft of land was not authorised to be sold or partitioned. Therefore, the entire sale of land of 10115 sqft is a nullity. Consequently the suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 31.3.2010 and for declaration that the plaintiff is in possession and ownership of land bearing Kh. No.20/34 admeasuring 10115 sqft of land. Further permanent injunction was also sought for.

3. The respondents filed the written statement wherein it was stated that the land bearing Kh.No.20/34 was sold in its entirety on 31.03.2010 and the demarcation was carried out by the plaintiffs itself in 2003, 2008 and 2012 which shows that 0.073 hectares equivalent to 7800 sqft exists at the spot and on rest of land, litigation was pending. It is further stated that the plaintiff had knowledge that no land is available to the extent of 10115 sqft., as described in the map and part of it is under litigation, as such, under the circumstances, the registered power of attorney was executed. Further it was stated that after executing the sale deed dt. 31.03.2010, the defendant was put into possession and she is holding the possession of the land. It was contended that by misrepresentation and suppression of such fact, the suit was filed. It was further pleaded that at the request of the plaintiff itself, the actual available land on the spot i.e., 7800 sqft was agreed to be sold and it was agreed that at the time of registry, the sale deed of the entire land of 10115 sqft would be executed. It was stated that the entire sale consideration was paid to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that when the power of attorney was executed in 2008, the entire right to manage the sale transac







































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top