Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Anr on 12 October, 2022
RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M)
and connected matters 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102
*****
1. RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M)
Date of decision: 12.10.2022
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Suresh Kumar and another ......Respondents
2. RSA No. 6502 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Ashok Sharma and another ......Respondents
3. RSA No. 6503 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Veena Rani and another ......Respondents
4. RSA No. 6504 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Inder Parkash and another ......Respondents
5. RSA No. 6505 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Kuldeep Kaur and another ......Respondents
6. RSA No. 6506 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Sudesh Kumar and another ......Respondents
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 08:02:33 :::
RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M)
and connected matters 2
7. RSA No. 6507 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Ranjna Sharma and another ......Respondents
8. RSA No. 6508 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Simrat Singh and another ......Respondents
9. RSA No. 6509 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Harpal Singh and another ......Respondents
10. RSA No. 6510 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Bhupinder Singh and another ......Respondents
11. RSA No. 6511 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Ashok Kumar and another ......Respondents
12. RSA No. 6512 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Rajinder Jarora and another ......Respondents
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 08:02:33 :::
RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M)
and connected matters 3
13. RSA No. 6513 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Ashok Kumar Gupta and another ......Respondents
14. RSA No. 6514 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Veena Rani and another ......Respondents
15. RSA No. 6515 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Dharmender Kumar and another ......Respondents
16. RSA No. 6516 of 2016 (O & M)
Vijay Sharma ......Appellant
Vs.
Khushvinder Sharma and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant
---
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of the above numbered 16 appeals being filed against the common judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 23.12.2015 and the lower appellate Court dated 11.8.2016. The facts are being taken from RSA No. 6501 of 2016.
2. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, i.e., trial Court vide judgment dated 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 08:02:33 ::: RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M) and connected matters 4 23.12.2015 as well as lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.8.2016, dismissing her suit.
3. The facts in brief are, the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration that the impugned sale deed No.4215 dated 5.07.2005 pertaining to a part/plot of the suit property is null and void, and she is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 6 kanals 19 marlas situated in Mauja Kansapur, Tehsil Jagdhri, District Yamuna Nagar, on the basis of sale deed No. 1464 dated 21.6.1996. Two revokable general power of attorneys (GPAs) dated 16.3.2005 were executed by the plaintiff with respect to her land in favour of Labh Singh/respondent-defendant no.2 and Smt. Rachna Sharma. The GPAs were got registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Dehradun. It was specifically mentioned in the GPAs that the holders thereof would take no objection certificate (NOC) from the concerned department prior to alienating the land. It was further averred that on 5.4.2008, the plaintiff came to know that her GPA holders executed various sale deeds of the suit land in favour of different parties without authority by bifurcating it in small plots. The details of the sale deeds executed by the GPA holders, which led to filing of 16 separate civil suits and the consequent appeals, are as under:
Sr. Sale Deed Dated By Whom In favour of Civil Suit
No. No. Defendants No.
1 13936 29.3.2005 Labh Singh Suresh Kumar 102 of 2011
2 13938 29.3.2005 Labh Singh Ashok Kumar 446 of 2011
3 4625 6.7.2005 Labh Singh Veena Rani 812 of 2011
4 4622 12.7.2005 Labh Singh Inder Parkash 805 of 2011
5 4215 5.7.2005 Labh Singh Kuldeep Kaur 540 of 2012
6 4354 76.7.2005 Labh Singh Sudesh Kumar 101 of 2011
7 2697 2.6.2005 Rachna Sharma Ranjna Sharma 116 of 2011
8 4216 5.7.2005 Labh Singh Simrat Singh 808 of 2011
9 4353 6.7.2005 Labh Singh Harpal Singh 806 of 2013
10 1426 6.5.2005 Rachna Sharma Bhupinder Singh 807 of 2011
11 13570 18.3.2005 Labh Singh Ashok Kumar 810 of 2011
12 4201 5.7.2005 Rachna Sharma Rajinder 811 of 2011
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 08:02:33 :::
RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M)
and connected matters 5
13 4203 5.7.2005 Rachna Sharma Ashok 543 of 2011
14 4361 6.7.2005 Rachna Sharma Veena Rani 809 of 2011
15 13939 29.3.2005 Labh Singh Dharmender Kumar 541 of 2012
16 4202 5.7.2005 Rachna Sharma Khushvinder 804 of 2013
Sharma
4. The defendants contested the suit by stating that they are bona fide purchasers of the land by virtue of respective sale deeds, as afore mentioned, for valuation consideration, and possession of the land was also handed over to them at the spot. It was also stated that the sale deeds in their favour were executed by the GPA holders, who were competent to do that.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:
1. Whether defendant no.2 had executed the impugned sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 beyond the power given by the plaintiff in General Power of Attorney dated 16.3.2005 and the said sale deed is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP
2. If Issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration along with consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD (Defendant no.1 in all the suits).
4. Whether the instant suit is hopelessly time barred? OPD (Defendant no.1 in all the suits).
5. Whether the instant suit is not maintainable against defendant no.1 because he is bona fide purchaser of the plot in dispute? OPD (Defendant no.1 in all the suits).
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit against defendant no.1? OPD (Defendant no.1 in all the suits).
7. Relief.
6. Upon leading evidence, the trial Court decided Issues no.1 and 2 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suits. Issues no.3 to 6 were not pressed. The appeals filed against the same before the lower Appellate Court were also 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 08:02:33 ::: RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M) and connected matters 6 dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the GPA holders have executed sale deeds in violation of terms of the general power of attorneys, i.e., in violation of the authority delegated to them. He submits that they had no authority to divide the land into small plots and transfer it further by execution of sale deeds in favour of the defendants. It could only be done after obtaining NOC from the concerned department, which was not obtained. Besides, no consideration for the alleged sale(s) was received by the plaintiff. Therefore, the sale deeds are illegal and required to be declared null and void. It has also been argued by learned counsel that the sale deeds in favour of the defendants were a result of fraud having been committed by the GPA holders in collusion with the defendants/vendees. On coming to know about this, the GPAs were revoked by the plaintiff on 28.4.2008.
8. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below establishes that the GPAs, Ex.P4 & Ex.P5/Ex.D1 & Ex.D2, in question were executed by the plaintiff on 16.3.2005 and the same were revoked subsequently on 28.4.2008, vide cancellation deed Ex.P7. The sale deeds in favour of the defendants were executed by the GPA holders between 18.3.2005 to 12.7.2005, exhibited on record as Ex.P13 to Ex.P29. It is, therefore, apparent that at the time of execution of sale deeds, the GPA holders had the authority to do so. It is provided in the terms of the GPAs that the holders thereof have the right to sell the property in dispute or a part thereof, receive money, issue receipt and get the sale agreement registered. It is duly recorded in the sale deeds that consideration of sale was paid to the GPA holders. Consequently, there is nothing on record to establish that the GPA holders acted beyond their delegated authority while executing the sale deeds in question.
6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 08:02:33 ::: RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M) and connected matters 7
9. The argument raised by learned counsel that the plaintiff has not received any consideration of sale pursuant to the sale deeds and the same being without consideration are liable to be declared illegal, is not acceptable. As per settled proposition of law, a GPA holder acts as a donee of executant of the power of attorney; his acts bind the executant/donor of the power and are taken to have been performed by the latter. In case consideration has been paid to the GPA holders, as in the instant case, it is deemed to have been paid to the plaintiff/executant. The sale deeds in question, therefore, cannot be said to have been executed without consideration.
10. Reference can be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court to that effect in case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2012 (1) SCC 656; Para 13 of the judgment reads as under:
13. 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.
11. The defendants are bona fide purchasers of their respective pieces of land. These sale deeds cannot be said to be result of any collusion or fraud on the part of the defendants and the GPA holders. There is no evidence on record to establish any of the ingredients of fraud against them. Further, revocation of the GPAs by the plaintiff on 28.4.2008, i.e., subsequent to execution of sale deeds, cannot affect the rights of the defendants/vendees, who had purchased the land for lawful consideration during validity of the GPAs. Merely because 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 08:02:33 ::: RSA No. 6501 of 2016 (O & M) and connected matters 8 NOC was not obtained by the GPA holders from the concerned department before execution of the sale deeds in question, it is no ground to declare the same as null and void. This act, at best, is an irregularity to be looked into by the department concerned. It does not give any right to the plaintiff to seek the declaration.
12. It also needs to be noted that the sale deeds in question were executed between March to July 2005, and it took the plaintiff almost three years to revoke the same, i.e., on 28.4.2008. Still further, the civil suits seeking a declaration against the sale deeds were filed in the year 2012, i.e., after almost seven years of their execution. The sale deeds in question having been duly registered, it cannot be accepted that the same were not to the plaintiff's knowledge. Therefore, no exception can be taken to findings of the lower Appellate Court that the claim/suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
13. In view of the aforesaid, there is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgments of the Courts below which do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
14. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed.
15. Since the main appeals have been dismissed, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
16. A copy of the judgment be placed on the files of connected appeals.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
12.10.2022
A w Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 08:02:33 :::