Delhi District Court
Priyanka Batra vs Sandeep Grover on 27 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. UPASANA SATIJA
CJM, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, DELHI
(THE THEN SCJ-cum-RC, CENTRAL DISTRICT AT TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI)
RCA SCJ 34/2019
CNR NO. DLCT03-006667-2019
IN THE MATTER OF
Mrs. Priyanka Batra
W/o Sh. Vivek Batra
R/o A-2, Income Tax Colony,
Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026. .....Appellant
Versus
Mr. Sandeep Grover
R/o Tower GH-2, Apartment 9-A,
Orchid Gardens, Suncity, Sector-54,
Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana). .....Respondent
Date of Institution : 17.09.2019
Date of Reserving the Order : 17.09.2025
Date of Decision : 27.10.2025
Decision : Appeal Dismissed
Vide Transfer Order No. 41/DHC/Gaz./G-7/VI.E.2(a)/2025
Dated: 17th October, 2025 at Serial No. 7, the undersigned was
transferred from SCJ-cum-RC, Central THC to CJM, North
West, Rohini. Since arguments in the present case were heard by
the undersigned as SCJ-cum-RC, Central, Delhi, in view of para
no. 2 of the aforesaid transfer order, the Order is now being
pronounced in the present Court.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by Mrs. Priyanka Batra (appellant) against Mr. Sandeep Grover (respondent) Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.1 of 32 16:04:45 +0530 challenging judgment and decree dated 13.08.2019 passed by Shri Gajender Singh Nagar, the then Ld. Civil Judge in Suit No. 418/18 (hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment). Vide said judgment, suit of the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed.
2. Appellant was the plaintiff in the original suit. Respondent was defendant in the original suit. For convenience, the parties shall be referred by the nomenclature in original suit.
3. The facts in brief as pleaded by the plaintiff in her plaint are that defendant is the owner of land comprised in Khasra No. 179, 180, 181, 186 and 187 admeasuring 17 Bigha (approx.) by virtue of two separate registered sale deed dated 17.05.2000 as executed in his favour. Defendant had executed Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 24.11.2001 in favour of Sh. Ashok Malik father of plaintiff, for sale of the land in question for consideration of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-. Against the total sale consideration amount, a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- already paid to the defendant vide different cheques as mentioned in the Receipt- cum-Agreement to Sell and balance amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was to be paid on, or before 24.11.2004. The defendant had also handed over all the original documents being the sale deeds in his favour to Sh. Ashok Malik, who in turn handed over the same to the plaintiff. Father of plaintiff and his wife had advanced an interest free loan to the defendant for Sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in the year 2001. Further, there was an understanding between the parties that the loan amount as aforesaid would be adjusted against the balance sale consideration to be paid by Sh. Ashok Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.2 of 32SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:04:50 +0530 Malik to the defendant. Sh. Ashok Malik died on 04.01.2003 and after his death, the plaintiff contacted and called upon the defendant to execute sale deed in accordance with the terms of Agreement to Sell dated 24.11.2001 as also to adjust the loan amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- which had been advanced by her parents. Then the defendant confirmed the transaction between him and parents of the plaintiff and executed a Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 in favour of the plaintiff and thereby the defendant constituted the plaintiff his attorney to do, execute and perform all acts, deeds, matters, concerning, or in relation to the land in question. While executing the SPA dated 23.06.2003 the defendant duly acknowledged the factum of the plaintiff, even otherwise having interest in the property in question on account of her being the legal heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malik. Thereafter the plaintiff has been contacting time and again for execution of sale deed, but the defendant has been avoiding the same on one pretext, or the other and primarily on the ground that the interest of the plaintiff with respect to land in dispute was otherwise secured, since the defendant has already executed an SPA in her favour. Upon contacting certain property brokers to ascertain the marketability of the land in question, plaintiff came to know that defendant had already contacted them previously holding himself as absolute owner. Plaintiff contacted Tehsildar to ascertain the present status of the land in question and found that defendant had made an application before Sub-Registrar Neemrana, about the cancellation of the SPA dated 23.06.2023 in favour of the plaintiff on 19.04.2005 vide letter dated 02.09.2005. Plaintiff also learnt that defendant had also lodged a false and frivolous FIR with the SHO PS Hauz Khas about his Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.3 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:04:54 +0530 having allegedly lost the original documents pertaining to the land in question. Since the plaintiff had acquired interest in the land in question by virtue of her being legal heir of deceased Sh. Ashok Malik, the said Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 as executed in her favour by the defendant had even otherwise become irrevocable. The plaintiff also came to know from local property dealers that defendant is trying to sell/create third party interest in the land in question by holding himself to be the absolute owner. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction seeking following reliefs:
a. Decree of Declaration in favour of the plaintff and against the defendant declaring the Deed of Cancellation of Special of Attorney dated 19.04.2005 as executed by the defendant and got registered with the Sub-Registrar-V, Delhi, vide Registration No. 5558, Book No. 4, Volume No. 2487 on pages 79-80 on 19.04.2005, to be null and void, sham and illegal and non-est in the eyes of law and thereby simultaneously declaring the Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 as executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar-VII, Delhi, vide Registration No. 3567, Addl. Book No. 4, Volume No. 900 on ages 140-141 on 23.06.2003 to be subsisting and valid;
b. Decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, and employees etc. from selling, alienating, encumbering and/or creating third party interests in any manner anywise in the land measuring 17 Bighas approx., and as comprised in Khasra No. 179, 180, 181, 186 and 187, ad-
Digitally
signed by
UPASANA
UPASANA SATIJA
SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27
16:04:58
RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.4 of 32 +0530
measuring 17 Bighas (approx.) situated on the National Highway No. 8, at Gram janak Singh Pura, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. Written Statement was filed on behalf of defendant wherein he stated that defendant is the sole and absolute owner of the property and plaintiff has misappropriated the original documents of the defendant for which the defendant had already filed an FIR on 17.06.2005. The defendant intended to go to U.S.A. in the month of July, 2003 and that is when the defendant decided to issue a Special Power of Attorney to the Plaintiff on 23.06.2003 before going for a Visa to United States Embassy in New Delhi on 03.07.2003, and the S.P.A. was issued only to look after and manage the land in question in his absence since the plaintiff and her husband were the most trusted friends of the defendant. Defendant only knew that Mr. Ashok Malik was the father of the plaintiff and the defendant never ever entered into any agreement with Mr. Ashok Malik. All the amounts are the loan amounts which the defendant has never denied and all the amounts have also not come from N.R.I. accounts as the major portion of the loan amounting to Rs. One Crore has come from the plaintiff's account as loan and not from the account of Mr. Ashok Malik. The documents i.e. the receipt-cum-agreement are wrongly produced and manipulated by plaintiff and her husband, and the suit has been filed on the manipulated and misplaced property documents which they have misappropriated. An amount of Rs. One Crore was paid by the plaintiff as a loan to the defendant. On 06.04.2005, the C.B.I. had conducted Extensive Raids at all the premises of Mr. Vivek Batra and Priyanka Batra and the defendant was also searched by C.B.I. on the same date Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.5 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:02 +0530 in connection with the plaintiff and her husband since she had been employed with the defendant earlier, and more so because she had given a loan of Rs. One Crore to the defendant. After the C.B.I. raids and the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff and her husband, that the defendant revoked and cancelled the Special Power of Attorney issued in favour of the Plaintiff on 19.04.2005 and duly informed the Plaintiff about the same and a Public Notice was also got published in the Newspaper 'Veer Arjun" dated 04.09.2005.
Replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff.
5. Vide judgment dated 13.08.2019, the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff has challenged the impugned judgment on the following grounds:
(a) The Ld. Trial Court incorrectly and unnecessarily went to the extent of examining the validity of SPA dated 23.06.2003, whereas it was not an issue before the Ld. Trial Court to adjudicate upon that whether the SPA dated 23.06.2003, which is an admitted document, is a valid document or not. After perusing the Issue Nos.4, 6, 7 and 8, which were required to proved by the Appellant/Plaintiff, it can be easily construed that the core issue which was required to be adjudicated upon by the Ld. Trial Court was that whether the execution of Cancellation Deed dated 19.04.2005 by the Defendant, cancelling the said SPA dated 23.06.2003, was valid or not. Therefore, arguments on behalf of Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.6 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:06 +0530 Plaintiff were also addressed in respect of said Issue on the basis of applicable legal provisions. Plaintiff also filed Written Arguments in this regard. However, the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment, did not consider the Pleintiff's said submissions at all. Rather, the Ld. Trial Court went on to consider a different controversy altogether, which was neither an Issue before him nor the said objection was ever raised by the Defendant in the pleadings.
(b) The Appellant/Plaintiff was required to prove only four issues in her favour, viz. Issue Nos.4, 6, 7 and 8, which are technically legal issues and no documentary evidence were required to prove the same, especially in view of the fact that the execution and registration of the said SPA was an admitted fact.
As it can be easily construed that all these Issues are not only inter-related, but the Issue Nos.6-8 are dependent upon Issue No.4. If the Issue No.4 is decided in the favour of Appellant/ Plaintiff, Issue Nos.6-8 would be automatically stand proved in her favour.
(c) At no point of time Plaintiff was ever confronted with the issue of validity of SPA dated 23.06.2003, nor did any such occasion arise as the same is an admitted fact. Had it been so, Plaintiff would have answer the same and satisfy the Ld. Trial Court on this legal aspect as well.
(d) It had never been the case of Defendant that the SPA dated 23.06.2003 cannot be considered as a valid document. Nowhere in the pleadings, Defendant raised such an objection and/or Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.7 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:11 +0530 denied that the said SPA had not been executed and/or registered. Therefore, it was not required for the Ld. Trial Court to open a completely new issue at the time of passing on impugned judgment and even consider that whether the SPA dated 23.06.2003 can be read in evidence or not.
(e) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the said SPA dated 23.06.2003 is a registered document and as per the provisions of the Evidence Act, the same is to be presumed as validly executed and registered document, unless it is proved contrary. Further, the execution and registration of the said SPA dated 23.06.2003 is an admitted fact.
(f) Even otherwise had it been the case of Defendant that adequate and sufficient stamp duty was not paid for the SPA dated 23.06.2003 as per the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, then the Defendant was not required to revoke and cancel the same by executing a Cancellation Deed dated 19.04.2005, as the SPA dated 23.06.2003 would be an unenforceable document having no sanctity in the eyes of law, which could not be taken in evidence too. Per contra, admittedly. Defendant executed the Cancellation Deed dated 19.04.2005, cancelling the SPA dated 23.06.2003, which undoubtedly establishes that Defendant had accepted the legality and admissibility of the SPA dated 23.06.2003 and that is why he clandestinely cancelled the same, that too without informing the Plaintiff in this regard.
(g) The Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that vide the said registered SPA dated 23.06.2003, Defendant specifically only Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.8 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:18 +0530 entrusted the powers upon the Plaintiff to do, execute and perform all acts, deeds, matters and things to sell, transfer and alienate the aforesaid property and to execute the relevant instruments of sale and present the same for registration before the registering authority in view of the interest created in the property. Vide the said SPA, Defendant further entrusted the powers upon the Plaintiff to receive the sale price and to issue receipt for the same and also to give formal possession of the property. It was not mentioned in the said SPA that such sale consideration was to be remitted to the Defendant, thus the sale consideration would be the exclusive property of the Plaintiff. Defendant further entrusted the powers upon Plaintiff to further pass on the said powers of SPA to anybody else. Thus, a close reading of the said SPA would suggest that a substantial interest was created in favour of Plaintiff. w.r.t. the said land, which was the subject matter of the said SPA. Therefore, the said SPA became an irrevocable one, which cannot be terminated unilaterally without the consent of the Plaintiff as per the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
(h) The Ld. Trial Court completely failed in appreciating the legal provisions that a power of attorney executed in favour of an agent recording or recognizing an interest of the agent/attorney in the property, which is the subject matter of the agency, cannot be revoked or terminated even if the instrument does not state specifically that it is irrevocable, as then it would be a power coupled with an interest. It is further submitted that mere title on a document is not sufficient to construe that the power of Digitally attorney is irrevocable or revocable.
signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:21 +0530 RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.9 of 32
(i) The Ld. Trial Court did not consider that in the case of "Manubhai vs Jayantilal [2012 (1) GLH 565/" . Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that:
"The Court, can clearly say that the document, though, is styled as an irrevocable power of attorney is not in substance a power coupled with interest so as to make it an irrevocable power of attorney. At the same time, even if there is no title to show that the power is an irrevocable power, but, the substance of the entire document would suggest that the same is an irrevocable power coupled with interest. Therefore, a document has to be construed as a whole. A stray sentence here and there cannot be picked out to construe a document. To understand the tenor of the document and the intention of the parties, it has to be read as a whole. The real intention of the parties has to be covered not merely from what ex-facie is stated in the document, but, from the totality of the recitals in the document."
(j) The Ld. Trial Court also did not consider the judgments, relied upon by the Plaintiff in the cases of "Seth Loon Karan Sethiya vs Ivan E. John And Ors. [AIR 1969 SC 73f", "Harbas Singh vs Shanti Devi [11977 RLR 487, 13 (1977) DLT 3695", and "Vimala Mukandan vs T Gopi Krishna Prasad Gopi, [RFA No.307/2010, decided on 18.07.2011]"
(k) The Ld. Trial Court failed in considering that in light of the above referred judgments, it can be easily construed that mere use of the word 'irrevocable' in a Power of Attorney will not Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.10 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:25 +0530 make the Power of Attorney irrevocable' unless the terms thereof, disclose that it created or recognized an agency coupled with interest in favour of the Agent. For example, a power of Attorney simplicitor, which merely authorizes an Agent, to do certain acts, in the name of or on behalf of the executant can be revoked or cancelled by the executant at any time, in spite of the instrument stating that the Power of Attorney is irrevocable. On the other hand, a Power of Attorney executed in favour of an Agent, recording or recognizing an interest of the Agent/Attorney, in the property which is the subject matter of the Agency, cannot be revoked or terminated, even if the instrument does not state specifically that it is irrevocable, as then, it would be a power coupled with an interest.
(l) In the present matter, the said registered SPA dated 23.06.2003 in favour of the Plaintiff, is an irrevocable power of attorney, which cannot be revoked or terminated by the Defendant unilaterally without any prior notice to the Plaintiff or without her prior consent for the same, as by virtue of said SPA, Defendant has created powers upon the Plaintiff coupled with interest of the Plaintiff in the said land, which is the subject matter of the said SPA. In any event, the same could be cancelled only by a decree of court of competent jurisdiction.
(m) The Ld. Trial Court completely failed in considering that the action of Defendant in revocation of the said SPA dated 23.06.2003 vide Cancellation Deed dated 19.04.2005 is illegal, arbitral and against the provisions of law. Hence, the said Cancellation Deed dated 19.04.2005 deserved to be declared null Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.11 ofSATIJA 32 Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:28 +0530 and void, as was prayed by the Plaintiff in the suit and the SPA dated 23.06.2003 was required to be declared as valid and still subsisting.
(n) The Ld. Trail Court erred in observing that the said SPA dated 23.06.2003 falls under the category of Article 48 (f).
However, the correct provision is that the same is covered under Article 48 (a) and (c). In this regard it is submitted that the said SPA dated 23.06.2003 was not given for consideration. The consideration for the sale of concerned property was already paid to the Defendant/ Respondent, for which an Agreement to Sell- cum-Receipt dated 24.11.2001 was executed, which is a separate contract. Therefore, the SPA dated 23.06.2003 and Agreement to Sell-cum-Receipt dated 24.11.2001, both are independent documents/contracts. In any event, SPA is a registered document and presumed to be validly executed and registered in accordance with law. In any event, the same could be cancelled only by a decree of court of competent jurisdiction.
(o) To prove the above said contention, Issue No.5 was framed by the Ld. Trial Court, i.e. "Whether Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 is not independent from Agreement to Sell dated 24.11.20012 OPD". The onus to prove the said fact was on Defendant/ Respondent. But, since he did not lead any evidence, the said issue has to be decided against Defendant/Respondent and in favour of Plaintiff Appellant. Therefore, it stands proved that the SPA dated 23.06.2003 is pursuant to Agreement to Sell dated 24.11.2001 and in view of the interest created by said Agreement to Sell. Thus, the SPA dated 23.06.2003 undisputedly Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.12 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:32 +0530 falls under Article 48 (a) and (c) of Schedule-1 of the Indian Stamp Act. Hence, the observation of the Ld. Trial Court that "Special Power of Attorney was squarely falls within four corners of Article 48 (f) of Schedule-1 of Indian Stamp Act" is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be set aside.
(p) Though the SPA dated 23.06.2003 only contains the clause empowering the Plaintiff Appellant to execute instrument of sale and get the same registered in respect of property in question, however the correct position of law is that even the said empowerment does not actually transfer the right or title in the property in question in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant. Rather, it is only a delegation of power to inter-alia execute the Sale Deed on behalf of Defendant/Respondent and registration thereof in the office of competent authority in accordance with law.
(q) In support of above said contention, Appellant relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Harbas Singh vs Shanti Devi [1977 RLR 487, 13 (1977) DLT 3691 , wherein it was held that: "(7) For the purposes of the Law of Contract, therefore, it would not be useful to restrict the meaning of the word "interest" by the narrow compass in which this world is used at times in relation to immovable property. For instance, the last sentence of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act states that a contract for sale of itself does not create any interest in or charge on immovable property. Similarly, section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act makes only those documents compulsorily registerable which create, declare, assign, limit or Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.13 of 32SATIJA Date:
RCA SCJ 34/2019 2025.10.27
16:05:35
+0530
extinguish any right, title or interest. whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property. Since an agreement for sale does not create such a right, title or interest, it may not be compulsorily registerable. But in the context of the Contract Act, it cannot be said that a person who is the beneficiary of an agreement of sale has no right or interest in the subject-matter of the sale. He has a legally enforceable right and interest in enforcing the contract of sale by the execution of a sale deed and in getting possession of the property agreed to be sold under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. In the English Common Law, the specific performance of contracts was a part of the law of contract. This is why Chapter Iv of the Contract Act deals with the performance of contracts which includes the performance of contracts relating to immovable property also. In fact, section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act says that the chapters and sections of that Act which relate to contracts shall be taken as part of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, the respondent in whose favor the appellant had executed an agreement for the sale of an immovable property had an interest in the subject-matter of the contract. namely, the shop, turn the purposes of section 202 of the Contract Act if not for the purposes of the Transfer of Property and the Registration Acts.".
(r) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. , reported in 2009 (7) SCC 363, while discussing the ill-effects of General Power of Attorney Sales or Sale Agreement/General Power of Attorney/Will transfers and while holding that SA/GPA/Will Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.14 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:05:39 +0530 transactions are not 'transfers' or 'sales and such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances, has made some observations relevant so far as the present matter is concerned, which state as under:-
"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 Vs. Basant Nehata-2005 (12) SCC 77, 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 is 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. 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 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.15 of 32 2025.10.27 16:05:44 +0530 power of attorney, we have noticed herein before, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject 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 the donor and the donee." An attorney holder nay however, execute a deed of conveyances in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor."
(s) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Suraj Lamp (Supra) also held that "a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank-94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.".
(t) The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.16 of SATIJA 32 Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:04 +0530 by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records.
(u) The Ld. Trial Court's observations that "the original Special Power of Attorney has never been produced before the Court"and "secondary evidence qua same can also not been accepted" are also not tenable in the eyes of law. In the present case, though no formal Admission/Denial of the documents was conducted, as the Ld. Trial Court found it difficult to do so, as recorded in his order dated 15.02.2019, the fact of execution of the SPA dated 23.06.2003 by the Defendant/Respondent in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant, had been duly admitted by the Defendant/ Respondent in his pleadings of the suit and there was no occasion for leading evidence for proving the same.
(v) The Ld. Trial itself bypassed the procedure of conducting Admission/Denial of the documents, observing vide order dated 15.02.2019 that "It is to be noted that in the present matter, the undersigned has faced difficulty in conduction admission/ denial of documents, thus there is no need to conduct admission/ denial of documents.". Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn by Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA Date:
SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.17 of 32 2025.10.27 16:06:08 +0530 the Ld. Trial Court qua the Plaintiff regarding the SPA dated 23.06.2003, execution and registration of which was admitted by the Defendant.
(w) It is an undisputed fact that the Defendant/Respondent had executed the SPA dated 23.06.2003 in favour of the Plaintiff Appellant. Therefore, in view of provisions of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 that 'admitted facts are not required to be proved', it is irrelevant whether the original SPA dated 23.06.2003 was produced or not, as such the same being an admissible document as per the provisions of the Evidence Act, the said SPA dated 23.06.2003 had to be read in evidence by the Ld. Trial Court, while adjudicating upon the suit.
(x) The Ld. Trial Court gravely erred in not appreciating that the defence set up by the Defendant/Respondent is that of a loan transaction between the parties, which even otherwise he has not repaid till date. No document in support of the said defence was brought on record by the Defendant/Respondent. The Defendant/ Respondent has claimed that the registered SPA dated 23.06.2003 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with a view to secure the so-called loan taken by the defendant from the plaintiff. It is submitted that such a defence is not tenable, and is barred under Sections 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in the face of the registered instrument, i.e. SPA dated 23.06.2003, admittedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. A written document cannot be countenanced by any oral evidence. Once a document has been admitted, Sections 91 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:13 +0530 RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.18 of 32 & 92 of the Evidence Act come into play and any oral evidence to prove to the contrary cannot be accepted.
(y) The Ld. Trial Court also erred in not appreciating that the cancellation of the said registered SPA dated 23.06.2003 is against the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with the aspect as to when cancellation of an instrument may be ordered. Section 31(1) states that any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument-if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable. Therefore, the written instrument has to be void or voidable against the party who seeks cancellation of the same. It is submitted that the duly executed and registered SPA dated 23.06.2003 in favour of the plaintiff is neither void, nor voidable, as the defendant failed to disclose any basis for any such claim.
(z) In the case of Karan Madaan and Others vs. Nageshwar Pandey, 209 (2014) DLT 241, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that:
"The defendant is barred in law by virtue of Section 91 and 92 from claiming that the amounts received by him were towards loan, and not towards sale consideration as already noticed above. In my view neither of these circumstances, in any way, detract from the title of the plaintiffs in the suit property by virtue of the instrument of sale registered on 02.12.2011. The sale deed itself records as to when, and in what manner, the entire sale consideration has been paid. The initial payments aggregating to Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.19 of 32 2025.10.27 16:06:17 +0530 Rs. 10 lacs were made on 24/25.02.2011. Thereafter, the balance payment of Rs. 1.55 crores has been made between 13.10.2011 and 31.10.2011. Mere spread of the period, during which consideration was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant-during February and October, 2011 does not suggest that the amounts were given as a loan, and not towards sale consideration. As noticed, such a plea is barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. Merely because the plaintiffs have not produced the written agreement to sell, or other instruments to show that the amounts were paid towards purchase of the said property, is neither here nor there, since the instrument of sale itself records the factum of the amounts being received by the defendant towards sale consideration. Pertinently, the defendant has not produced any document to show that the amounts were received by him only by way of loan, as alleged by him."
(aa) In the case of Bhaskar Waman Joshi Vs. Narayan Rambilas, MANU/SC/0161/1959: (1960) 2 SCR 117, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"The question in each case is one of determination of the real character of the transaction to be ascertained from the provisions of the deed viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances. If the words are plain and unambiguous they must, in the light of the evidence of surrounding circumstances, be given their true legal effect. If there is ambiguity in the language employed, the intention may be ascertained from the contents of the deed with such extrinsic evidence as may be, by law, be permitted to be adduced to show in what manner the language of the deed was Digitally related to existing facts."
signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:20 RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.20 of 32 +0530 (bb) In the case of Sanjay Gupta v. Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd., MANU/DE/0044/2008: 2008 (102) DRJ 234, Hon'ble Delhi High Court dealt with sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. In that case, the parties had entered into a registered lease deed. The plaintiff claimed that the lease was for residential purpose and that the defendant misused the leased premises for commercial purpose. The defendant claimed that the lease was for commercial purpose. This led to disputes between the parties. The defendant stopped payment of rent on the ground that the plaintiff had obstructed the use of the leased premises for commercial and office purpose. To determine the purpose of letting, the relevant clauses of the lease were examined. Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act were pressed into service to deny the aforesaid defence set up by the defendant. The relevant extract from the said decision reads as follows:
"20. The defence set up by the defendant that the plaintiff had agreed to get the user of the premises changed to commercial is in the teeth of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act since the defendant is seeking to contradict, vary, add to the terms of the registered lease deed. The Bombay High Court in Dinkarrai Lalit Kumar & Ors. v. Sukhdayal Rambilas & Ors.
MANU/MH/0051/1946: AIR 1947 Bom. 293 held that the terms of a contract reduced to writing cannot be ascertained by allowing parole evidence as to what transpired antecedent to the contract or what the parties did subsequent to the contract. Once the contract between the parties is reduced to writing, the court can only look at the writing alone in order to construe what the terms of the contract were.Digitally signed by UPASANA
UPASANA SATIJA Date: SATIJA 2025.10.27 16:06:24 +0530 RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.21 of 32
21......
22. In S. Saktivel (dead) by LRs. vs. M. Venugopal Pillai & Ors. MANU/SC/0499/2000: (2000) 7 SCC 104 the Supreme Court held that where under the law a contract or disposition is required by law to be in writing, its terms cannot be modified, altered or substituted by an oral contract, or disposition. Under Section 92(4) of the Evidence Act no parol evidence is admissible to substantiate such oral contract or disposition. Where a document for its validity or effectiveness is required by law to be given in writing, no modification or alteration or substitution of such written document is permissible by parol evidence and it is only by another written document that the terms of the earlier document can be altered, rescinded or substituted. The Supreme Court also held that parol evidence cannot be permitted to substantiate the subsequent oral agreement where the original agreement is contained in a registered document. This is not permitted by Section 92(4) of the Evidence Act. The terms of a registered document can be altered, rescinded or varied only by subsequent registered document and not otherwise. If the oral arrangement is allowed to be substantiated by parol evidence it would mean re-writing of the registered document which is not permissible."
(cc) In Satya Bhushan Kaura (Shri) Vs. Smt. Vijaya Myne, MANU/DE/9812/2006: 2007 VII AD (DELHI) 303, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court found that the defence set up by the defendant was a mala fide afterthought on the part of the defendant, in order to set up a semblance of a defence to the case of the plaint. In the said case, the defendant sought to impute failure on the part of Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.22 of 32 Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:28 +0530 the plaintiff to perform an obligation, which was contrary and not borne out from the agreement between the parties. The Court, inter alia, observed as follows:
"23. .............No such obligation as has been set up against the plaintiff by the defendant in its written statement, is to be found in the agreement dated 6th April, 2005. I find that no such obligation is asserted either in the notice dated 22nd March, 2006 or in the rejoinder dated 10th April, 2006. The pleas set up before this Court in this behalf therefore are completely belied by the prior stand and assertions of the defendant.
24. It is well settled that the oral stipulations when pitched against the written contract, would have to give way to the terms and conditions of the written statement which alone will bind the parties and nothing further. In this behalf, Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 need no elaboration. Hence the written statement really discloses no defence and such pleas have been set up only in an attempt to protract and delay the trial. If such a defence is examined on the principles applicable to an application on such facts seeking leave to defend in a suit under Order 37 of the CPC, this Court would have had to hold that the defendant has no defence and the pleas set up are illusory and moonshine."
(dd) In Sharex Acting Through Vinod Kumar Chadha Vs. Sudershan Suri, MANU/DE/1273/2010: 170 (2010) DLT 600 , the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rejected the plea of the appellant on the premise that the said plea was belied by the terms of the lease deed, the execution of which had been unequivocally admitted by the appellant. Reliance was placed on Parivar Seva Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.23 of 32SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:31 +0530 Sansthan v. Dr (Mrs.) Veena Kalra & Ors..
MANU/DE/0602/2000: 2000 (54) DRJ (DB). In para 20, the Court, inter alia, held as follows:
"20. To conclude, in the instant case the execution of the lease deed has been unequivocally admitted by the appellant. Once the execution of the document has been admitted, Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, come into play. Section 91 lays down that when the terms of a contract or of any other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract or other disposition of property, except the document itself. Section 92 further lays down that when the terms of any such contract or other disposition of property have been proved according to the last Section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted as between the parties to any such instrument for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting therefrom. Thus, quite obviously, the pleas raised by the appellant against the contents of the lease deed are barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and appear to have been made only for the purpose of delaying the trial of the case. Such pleas as ruled by this Court in the Parivar Seva Sansthan case (supra) can be ignored by the Court while adjudicating an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if otherwise the Court finds. either on an application of any party or on its own motion, that the admissions made in the pleadings or otherwise taken as a whole justify the passing of a decree thereon. In fact, the Court in the said case has gone so far as to say that even a constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis of the decree. All Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:36 +0530 RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.24 of 32 that the Court is required to do is to satisfy itself that the question raised in the suit can be determined without evidence......."
(ee) In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it is crystal clear that the defence/case set up by the defendant in the present case is barred under section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, and the defendant is, therefore. precluded from setting up the defence/case, as aforesaid, in the face of the registered instrument, i.e. SPA dated 23.06.2003 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.
8. Arguments were heard. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of parties. Entire record is perused.
9. The issues as framed by Ld. Trial Court are as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fees? OPD.
3. Whether this Court has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.
4. Whether Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 executed in favour of plaintiff is irrevocable one as plaintiff has herself an interest in the property which forms subject matter of the Power of Attorney? OPP.
5. Whether Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 is not independent from Agreement to Sell dated 24.11.2001? OPD.
Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:39 RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.25 of 32 +0530
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration to declare deed of cancellation of Special Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2005 null and void, sham, illegal and non-est? OPP.
7. Whether Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 executed in favour of plaintiff is subsisting and valid? OPP.
8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant, his agents, servants and employees etc. from selling, alienating, encumbering and/ or creating third party interest in any manner in the property in question? OPP.
10. Issues no.4 to 8 were decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
11. While deciding issue 4 to 7, trial court observed that-
"...14. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff has not led any evidence in this regard. Furthermore, the original Special Power of Attorney has never been produced before the Court. Since no evidence has been led on behalf of the plaintiff, thus there is no question of any fact being proved.
15. As per Article 48 (f) of Schedule-I of Indian Stamp Act a Power of Attorney when given for consideration and authorizing an attorney to sell any immovable property, the same shall bear the stamp duty as conveyance for the amount of the consideration i.e. ad- valorem stamp duty as paid on sale deed.Digitally signed by UPASANA
UPASANA SATIJA
SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27
16:06:42 +0530
RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.26 of 32
16. Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act provides that no
instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law, or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public office, unless such instrument is duly stamped.
17. From the photocopy of Special Power of Attorney filed on record, it is apparent that the Special Power of Attorney is on the stamp paper of Rs. 10/-, thus ad- valorem Stamp Duty has not been paid, hence the same cannot be used as evidence. Further, evidence qua same can also not been accepted. Reliance being placed upon judgment delivered in case titled as Yasodammal & Anr. Vs. Janaki Ammal, AIR 1968 Madras 294 (V 55 C 68) wherein it was held that no relief can be granted on the basis of an unstamped document even if its execution is admitted in pleadings by the contesting party as it would amount to acting upon an unstamped document, which is prohibited U/s 35 of Indian Stamp Act. In the present matter case of the plaintiff is that the Special Power of Attorney in her favour is irrevocable as she is interested in the property as her father made payment under agreement to sell qua same property, thus Special Power of Attorney was squarely falls within four corners of Article 48 (f) of Schedule-I of Indian Stamp Act. Since the same is not sufficiently stamped, thus the same cannot be With these admitted in evidence being not duly executed. observations, the said issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant."
12. While deciding Issue no. 8, trial court observed-
Digitally signed by UPASANAUPASANA SATIJA Date: SATIJA 2025.10.27 16:06:46 +0530 RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.27 of 32 "...18. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff has not led any evidence in this regard. Furthermore, it has already been held above that the Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 has not been duly executed due to want of ad-volorem Court Fees and it cannot be admitted in evidence, thus the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction. With these observations, the said issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants."
13. The appellant has challenged the finding of Ld. Trial Court on the said issues.
14. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the SPA executed for consideration was unstamped, and therefore, unenforceable under the Indian Stamp Act.
15. The appellant contends that the SPA was an admitted document, never disputed, and that the trial court should not have gone into the question of stamping.
16. It is not in dispute that the Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant is a registered document. The respondent does not deny its execution.
17. Although the execution of SPA was admitted, the Trial Court was justified in examining its legal effect and nature since the issue of revocation necessarily required determining whether it was coupled with interest. It is well settled that a deed Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.28 of 32 2025.10.27 16:06:49 +0530 executed for consideration must be properly stamped to be enforceable. Admission of the document in evidence does not cure the deficiency in stamp duty. In the absence of proper stamping, the SPA cannot confer enforceable rights, and the revocation deed cannot be challenged. Considering the above, the trial court was justified in examining the enforceability of the SPA.
18. Respondent contends that SPA was executed out of friendly relations and trust, as he had to travel abroad. On the other hand, the appellant contends that Defendant had executed Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 24.11.2001 in favour of Sh. Ashok Malik, father of appellant, for sale of the land in question for consideration of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-. After death of Sh. Ashok Malik, defendant confirmed the transaction between him and parents of the plaintiff and executed a Special Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2003 in favour of the plaintiff and thereby the defendant constituted the plaintiff his attorney to do, execute and perform all acts, deeds, matters, concerning, or in relation to the land in question. While executing the SPA dated 23.06.2003, the defendant duly acknowledged the factum of the plaintiff even otherwise having interest in the property in question, on account of her being the legal heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malik.
19. The SPA is registered, which under the Registration Act gives it presumption of authenticity and validity. It is neither the contention of the plaintiff nor defendant that said SPA was for consideration. Plaintiff claims that SPA was executed in recognition of her interest under agreement to sell cum receipt, Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA Date: SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.29 of 32 2025.10.27 16:06:52 +0530 being legal heir of Sh. Ashok Malik whereas defendant claims that SPA was executed on account of trust and friendly relation. In either case, SPA cannot be said for consideration. Hence, the learned Trial Court erred in holding that the SPA required stamp duty as it was executed for consideration. The document, being gratuitous, is covered by Article 48(f) of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act.
20. It is the claim of the plaintiff that SPA is irrevocable as the same is coupled with interest. The onus to prove said fact was upon the plaintiff. Even though execution of SPA was admitted, the question whether it was coupled with interest is a mixed question of fact and law requiring proof of the alleged underlying transaction.
21. It is settled law under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act that an agency becomes irrevocable only when it is coupled with interest, i.e., when the attorney has an independent interest in the subject matter.
22. In the present case, though the SPA authorises the appellant to sell the property, receive sale proceeds, deliver possession, and appoint further attorney, the mere conferral of such powers does not create interest. Interest must exist independently i.e. interest is something that the attorney already holds.
23. The appellant's claim of such interest rests upon the alleged agreement to sell-cum-receipt executed in favour of her Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.30 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:56 +0530 father. The original has not been produced. Though the respondent has not denied his signature, he disputes the document's genuineness and points out that the signature of the appellant's father is absent. In absence of proof of due execution or payment of consideration, the alleged agreement cannot establish any antecedent interest in the property. That document has not been proved, nor has any other material been placed on record to show that the plaintiff or her predecessor held any legal or beneficial interest in the property prior to execution of the SPA. The document/SPA itself contains no recital of any prior agreement to sell or of consideration.
24. Consequently, the SPA cannot be treated as one coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act. The mere authorisation to sell the property, receive sale proceeds and issue receipt does not create an interest in the subject matter. The agency was therefore gratuitous and revocable.
25. Although the learned Trial Court erred in holding that the SPA required stamp duty; nevertheless, this misdirection does not vitiate the conclusion, since on merits the SPA is revocable.
26. The appellant had full opportunity before the Trial Court to adduce evidence and produce original documents but chose not to. No ground is made out for remand merely to give a second opportunity; more so when such opportunity has already been declined by Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.31 of 32 SATIJA Date:
2025.10.27 16:06:59 +0530 petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant.
27. In view of the above, the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court is affirmed, though for reasons somewhat different from those recorded by it. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
28. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
29. Trial Court Record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
30. Appeal File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Digitally
Announced in open Court. signed by
UPASANA
On this 27th day of October, 2025 UPASANA SATIJA
SATIJA Date:
This Judgment contains 32 pages 2025.10.27
and each page is signed by me. 16:07:05
+0530
(UPASANA SATIJA)
CJM, North West District
Rohini Courts: Delhi
RCA SCJ 34/2019 Priyanka Batra Vs. Sandeep Grover Page No.32 of 32