Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Smt. Basanti Gupta, wife of Sh. L.R. Gupta, died intestate on 09.10.1991. Thus, the property was inherited by Sh. Rajiv, Smt. Usha, and Smt. Amita in equal shares. Though Smt. Usha and Smt. Anita filed a suit for partition bearing Suit No. 1961/2000 before this Court, in which an order of status quo was passed but thereafter both Smt. Usha and Smt. Anita relinquished their shares in favour of their brother, Sh. Rajiv, on 03.09.2004, and the suit for partition filed by them was accordingly disposed of. During the pendency of the suit for partition, Sh. Rajiv executed a set of documents in favour of Sh. Judge Chawla [hereinafter referred to as 'Judge Chawla'], including a registered General Power of Attorney ('GPA') and an Agreement to Sell ('ATS') on 12.05.2004. On the strength of the registered GPA, Judge Chawla executed a set of documents, including GPA in favour of Arun Khanna and ATS, registered Will, possession letter, receipt, and affidavit, in favour of Smt. Vaneeta Khanna - Respondent No. 1 [hereinafter referred to as 'Smt. Vaneeta']. On the strength of the said GPA, Sh. Arun executed a registered ATS in favour of his wife, Smt. Vaneeta, on 16.06.2004.

i. The Chopras are bona fide purchasers of the Suit Property for valuable consideration, as a registered GPA and a registered Will were executed in their favour on 22.03.2004, whereas the registered ATS was executed on 14.09.2004, along with a registered Will and a registered GPA, on payment of the balance sale consideration. The Appellants additionally paid Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively to Smt. Usha and Smt. Anita qua relinquishment of their share. The Chopras were handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit Property on 14.09.2004.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents, while defending the Impugned Judgment, has submitted as follows:
i. The registered GPA and registered Will dated 22.03.2004 would not confer any right upon the Chopras, as they were not accompanied by a registered ATS on payment of sale consideration. It is submitted that the Chopras, at the most, would be entitled to represent Sh. Rajiv on the basis of the GPA and registered Will. It is further contended that, in fact, the Chopras have played fraud by obtaining the signatures under the pretext of securing permission for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold and by getting his signatures on blank papers, on which the Collaboration Agreement was fabricated. It is contended that the aforesaid Collaboration Agreement was not produced in evidence, and only a photocopy was filed, which was never marked as an Exhibit.
Findings & Analysis:
15. This Court has examined the registered GPA and registered Will dated 22.03.2004 executed by Sh. Rajiv in favour of the Chopras and found that there is no reference to payment of any consideration for execution of the GPA. The registered Will dated 22.03.2004 would operate only after the death of the testator, i.e., Sh. Rajiv. Under the registered GPA dated 22.03.2004, the Chopras could, at the most, 2022:PHHC:074382.