Back
SONIA GOKANI, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Prakash Babulal Sheth – Appellant
Versus
Shashikalal Mayur Sheth – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SONIA GOKANI, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.2245 of 1998, which resulted in form of the original plaintiff and original defendant.
Factual Matrix:
2. Brief facts in capsulized form are as follow:
2.1 The appellants Nos.1 to 3 are the original defendants and the respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff. Respondent Nos.2/1 and 2/4 are the heirs of the deceased defendant No.4 and they are joined after the demise of the original defendant No.4, who is the father of the appellant. Appellants and respondents shall be referred to as the defendant and plaintiff respectively for the sake of convenience hereinafter.
2.3 It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was purchased in the year 1990 in her name through power of attorney the defendant No.1. Because of the good family relations, the plaintiff with the consultation of her husband Mr.Mayur Sheth (since deceased) permitted all the defendants including her father-in-law to reside in the said house as defendants did not have personal property
A power of attorney does not confer title to property; fraudulent sales executed by an agent without the principal's consent are invalid under the Benami Transactions Act.
The court ruled that a power of attorney does not confer title; fraudulent sales to a power agent's spouse are invalid and do not transfer ownership, reinforcing the principles against benami transac....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Power of Attorney was executed as a security for a loan and the sale deed was executed without consideration, making it void.
Power of Attorney has certain limitations.
Registered Power of Attorney presumed valid under S.114(e) Evidence Act unless fraud specifically pleaded and proved; lack of Tamil literacy and attesting witness ignorance insufficient to invalidate....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
