The division judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal of the Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi held that the power of attorney executed is of no consequence if neither sale deed has been executed nor any action pursuant thereof has been taken by the power of attorney holder.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction against the Defendant. It was alleged that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by virtue of an agreement to sell, power of attorney, a memo of possession, and a receipt of payment of sale consideration as well as a “will” of the defendant.
Furthermore, the defendant opposed the suit on the grounds that the documents had been manipulated on blank sheets, but did not contest their execution or the fact that the possession memo or the sale consideration stipulated in the agreement had not been paid.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the power of attorney executed by the defendant has no bearing because neither a sale deed nor any other action done by the power of attorney holder in accordance with it has been executed, which may have conferred title on the plaintiff-respondent. The specified general power of attorney is rendered ineffective if any document is not executed by the person holding it as a result.
It was furthermore observed that the will executed has no meaning as the same comes into effect only after the death of the executant and not before it.
It was noted that the general power of attorney and the will as executed, as well as any practise followed by a State or the High Court that recognises these documents as being documents of title or documents granting rights in any immoveable property, violate the law. The precise legal requirements, which demand the execution of a deed of title or transfer and its registration in order to provide right and title to an immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/-, would prevail over any such practise or custom that may be in use.
It was also noted that an agreement to sell may not be legally regarded as a sale transaction or a document transferring the proprietary rights in immovable property, but once the prospective buyer has fulfilled his obligations under the agreement and is lawfully in possession, he or she acquires possessory title that is subject to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. No one, including the transferer or anybody deriving rights from him, may infringe upon the aforementioned possessory rights of the potential buyer.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Top Court is of the view that the Plaintiff has rightly been held to be entitled to a decree of eviction with mesne profits.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 7527 – 7528 of 2012
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 522 SC
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, AOR
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
