Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The suit property is built over leasehold plot measuring 125 sq. yards which was originally allotted to Darshan Kaur. Darshan Kaur sold the said plot to the plaintiff on 19th April, 1973 vide construction agreement dated 19th April, 1973 accompanied by General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff‟s nominee, T.S. Chadha. The plaintiff constructed a three storey building over the said plot.

3. On 5th June, 1989, the plaintiff sold the first, second and terrace floors to Mohinder Kaur for total consideration of `4,50,000/-. The plaintiff received the entire sale consideration from Mohinder Kaur and handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to her. The plaintiff executed following documents relating to the suit property on 5th June, 1989:-

(i) The agreement to sell dated 5th June, 1989 records that the plaintiff to be the absolute owner in possession of the entire three storey building comprising of first, second and terrace floors built over land ad-measuring 125 sq.yrds.

bearing No.E-318, East of Kailash, New Delhi having purchased from the original allottee, Darshan Kaur vide construction agreement dated 19th April, 1973.

(ii) Clauses 1 and 3 of the agreement records that the plaintiff has agreed to sell the entire three storey building comprising of first, second and terrace floors to Mohinder Kaur for a total consideration of `4,50,000/- and the plaintiff has received the entire sale consideration and has handed over the vacant and peaceful possession to Mohinder Kaur.

All the aforesaid documents have been proved by defendants No.2 and 3 before the learned Trial Court and are Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/8.

7. On 19th September, 1992, the plaintiff instituted a suit for possession and mesne profits relating to the suit property on the ground that she had agreed to sell only first and second floors of the suit property to Mohinder Kaur who has illegally constructed third floor. The plaintiff further averred that Mohinder Kaur has not obtained the sale permission in terms of the agreement and the period of limitation of three years for implementation of the agreement has expired. The plaintiff further averred that she has cancelled the General Power of Attorney and will both dated 5th June, 1989 on 9th March, 1992.

(x) All the conditions of irrevocability are satisfied in the present case. The authority to the agent was given for valuable consideration which proceeded from Mohinder Kaur. It was given to Surinder Jit Singh, son and nominee of Mohinder Kaur to ensure and secure the performance of the contract by the plaintiff in favour of Mohinder Kaur.

(xi) The General Power of Attorney dated 5 th June, 1989 is irrevocable in view of Section 202 of the Contract Act. The plaintiff, therefore, had no right to terminate the said General Power of Attorney. The General Power of Attorney is legal, valid and subsisting. The revocation of the General Power of Attorney by plaintiff is, therefore, of no consequence.