Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Mr. Parbodh Chander Bali vs Rakesh Singh And Others on 12 August, 2014

h[                                                                   1

                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                             CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                                            CONMT.PET.(C) No. 351/2013

                                                                 IN

                                                   SLP(C) No. 13917/2009


      MR. PARBODH CHANDER BALI                                                          .......PETITIO
NER


                                                             VERSUS


      RAKESH SINGH AND OTHERS                                                           ......RESPONDE
NTS



                                                     O   R       D       E   R

                                 The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition

      alleging disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in

      Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director vs.

      State               of     Haryana   and     another    (2012)         1   SCC   656.   In   ord
er    to

      appreciate the submissions advanced at the hands of the petitioner,

      who appears in person, it is imperative for us to extract hereunder

      the operative part of the judgment passed by this Court.                                     The
 same

      is accordingly reproduced below:

                                 "23. Therefore, an 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 - (2001)
                                 94 DLT 841, that the "concept         of     power      of
                                 attorney    sales    has    been    recognized     as    a
                                 mode     of   transaction"       when    dealing      with
                                 transactions by way of SA/GPA/will are unwarranted
Signature Not Verified
                                 and    not      justified, unintendedly        misleading
                                 the general      public into thinking that SA/GPA/will
Digitally signed by
Satish Kumar Yadav
Date: 2014.08.20
10:41:28 IST
Reason:                          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
                                2

contrasted    from       an         agreement     to transfer,
are not good law.
24.     We      therefore reiterate            that    immovable
property         can     be       legally       and       lawfully
transferred/conveyed            only       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 53-A
of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied
upon or made the            basis       for     mutations       in
municipal         or     revenue          Records.    What      is
stated above will         apply       not     only    to     deeds
of conveyance        in      regard       to freehold property
but also         to   transfer of leasehold            property.
A    lease       can    be validly transferred only under
a registered assignment of lease. It is time that
an end is put to the pernicious practice of
SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales.

25.    It    has     been   submitted      that   making
declaration     that    GPA    sales     and SA/GPA/will
transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer
is likely to create hardship to a large           number
of     persons who        have        entered into such
transactions and they should be given sufficient
time to regularize      the transactions by obtaining
deeds of conveyance. It is also submitted that this
decision should be made applicable prospectively to
avoid hardship.

26.    We   have      merely   drawn      attention   to
and reiterated      the   well-settled legal position
that SA/GPA/will transactions are not "transfers"
or ‘sales’ and that such       transactions       cannot
be treated       as     completed      transfers      or
conveyances. They can continue to be treated as
existing agreements of sale. Nothing            prevents
the affected parties      from    getting     registered
deeds   of conveyance to complete their title. The
said ‘SA/GPA/will transactions’ may also be         used
to obtain specific performance or to defend
possession under section 53-A of TP Act. If they
are entered before this day, they may be relied
upon    to     apply      for     regularization      of
                                            3

             allotments/leases by development authorities. We
             make it clear that if the documents relating to
             "SA/GPA/will        transactions"       has      been
             accepted/acted upon by DDA or other developmental
             authorities    or   by the    Municipal   or Revenue
             authorities to effect       mutation,    they    need
             not   be     disturbed,   merely    on   account   of
             this decision.

             27.      We make it clear that our observations are
             not intended to in any way affect          the        validity
             of    sale    agreements     and powers      of       attorney
             executed     in genuine transactions. For example, a
             person may give a power of attorney to his spouse,
             son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to
             manage his affairs or to execute               a deed       of
             conveyance.      A person      may       enter         into a
             development agreement with a land developer or
                  builder for developing the land either by forming
                  plots         or          by constructing               apartment
                  buildings        and      in      that      behalf execute an
                  agreement of sale and grant a power of attorney
                  empowering     the      developer            to            execute
                  agreements       of     sale or conveyances         in      regard
                  to individual plots of land or undivided shares in
                  the land relating to apartments in favour of
                  prospective purchasers. In several States, the
                  execution of such development agreements                       and
                  powers     of       attorney       are already           regulated
                  by law and            subjected         to      specific stamp
                  duty. Our      observations            regarding ‘SA/GPA/will
                  transactions’ are            not     intended        to      apply
                  to     such bonafide/genuine transactions."


                  Primary reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the

observations            recorded          by     this    Court     in    paragraph        27     extracted

hereinabove. It is the submission of the petitioner that the State

Government is disobeying the above directions by registering deeds

of conveyance, in respect of the immovable properties wherein one

or the other party is represented through a power of attorney,

without giving due credence to the direction issued by this Court.

It     is     submitted,       that        registration            of    deeds     of    conveyance      is

permissible through powers of attorney, only if powers of attorney
                                                  4

are     in     favour          of        spouse,         son,           daughter,         brother,            sister
      or      a

relative.          Powers of attorney in favour of any other, besides those

mentioned above are not to be treated as genuine/valid.

                  We       have          given       our           thoughtful             consideration                 t
o       the

abovementioned submission/ of the petitioner.                                                      We are of the view

that the observations recorded by this Court in paragraph 27 are

illustrative in nature.                            It is only a matter of example, that this

Court recorded, that powers of attorney should be in favour of

spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative.                                                              Ordin
arily,

a power of attorney executed in consonance with the illustration

expressed          by      this          Court,          would          be     liable       to      be     considered
             as

genuine.                 The      real            intent      of          this      Court           was,        that
    bogus

transactions               should          be       stalled             and      prevented.                   It    woul
d        be

difficult          for      the          State      to      go          into     every      transaction,                a
nd        to

understand, whether or not the same is fraudulent or otherwise. It

is only when an aggrieved party or a person having interest in the

conveyance of some property, makes a complaint to the registering

authority, indicating that a transaction is fraudulent/bogus, the

State Government will be obliged to examine the veracity of the

transaction under reference, and if it is found, that the same is

not genuine, it would decline to register the conveyance of the

immovable property.

               The petitioner has not been able to draw our attention to

a single transaction, which has been accepted for registration,

despite        there           being         a    complaint              in   respect   of
      its

genuineness/validity.
                                   5

          In view of the above, we are satisfied that no contempt

has been made out.

          The instant petition is accordingly dismissed.



                                         ...........................J.
                                         (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)



                                         ...........................J.
                                          (ARUN MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 12, 2014.
                                         6

ITEM NO.5                    COURT NO.7                 SECTION IVB

                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F       I N D I A
                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CONMT.PET.(C) No. 351/2013 In SLP(C) No. 13917/2009


MR. PARBODH CHANDER BALI                                      Petitioner(s)

                                       VERSUS

RAKESH SINGH AND OTHERS                                       Respondent(s)

(With office report)

Date : 12/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
                 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
                 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Petitioner(s)      Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s)      Mr.Sanchar Anand, AAG
                       Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR

    Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                        O R D E R

The instant petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)