A registered sale deed executed by an attorney in an agency coupled with interest is valid and cannot be invalidated by a unilateral, uncommunicated endorsement of revocation on the power of attorney; clerical errors in such deeds regarding measurements are subject to rectification under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff directed against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.8208/2006 whereby plaintiff's suit seeking rectification of sale deed dated 17.08.1989 and for consequential relief of injunction is dismissed by the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiff instituted the suit seeking rectification of the sale deed dated 17.08.1989 executed by defendant No.2 as a GPA holder of defendant No.1 on the ground that the measurements of the suit schedule property are wrongly reflected North-South and East-West due to typographical error. Plaintiff specifically asserted that defendant No.1 is the owner and he formed two sites bearing Nos.1 and 2 in Survey No.55/2 and executed a GPA on 12.05.1989 coupled with interest in favour of defendant No.2.

Defendant No.1 received entire sale consideration from defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 as a GPA holder offered to sell the suit schedule property (site No.2) and accordingly, executed the sale deed on 17.09.1989.

4. Plaintiff has instituted the present suit by specifically asserting that in December 2004, plaintiff noticed error and therefore, issued a notice to defendants to execute rectification deed and rectify the error that has crept in the schedule.

5. After receipt of summons, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and admitted that he is the owner of the suit schedule property, however, stoutly denied the alleged GPA executed in favour of defendant No.2 evidence at Ex.P.6. Defendant No.1 however asserted that he had retained the suit schedule property and later he has sold the same in favour of Manjulabai and Savithri through registered sale deed and the remaining portion is retained by him. Defendant No.1 has alleged that plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.2 has created documents and therefore, disputed plaintiff's title.

6. The trial Court based on rival pleadings formulated issues and the parties were relegated to prove their case based on the issues framed by the trial Court. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 have adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on a presumption that defendant No.2 has conveyed the suit schedule property to plaintiff as a owner based on the GPA and it is in this backdrop, trial Court was of the view that issue No.1 casting burden on the plaintiff to prove the alleged typographical error indicated in the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff does not survive for consideration. The suit is accordingly, dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel on record. This Court has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence. The following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether trial Court erred in holding that plaintiff has no valid title over the suit schedule property by misapplying the principles laid down in Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana¹, when the plaintiff's claim is based on registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2 as a GPA holder of defendant No.1?

(ii) Whether the trial Court erred in not examining as to whether defendant No.1 has succeeded in proving that the GPA dated 12.05.1989 vide Ex.P6, executed in favour of defendant