AMAR NATH (DEAD) THROUGH L.R. versus GIAN CHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 28-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 281
281
AMAR NATH (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.
v.
GIAN CHAND AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5797 of 2009)
JANAUARY 28, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI
NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Deeds and Documents – Power of attorney – When not
cancelled – Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement for the sale of
his property for Rs. 55,000/- with the first defendant – It was
plaintiff’s case that the first defendant couldn’t arrange the money
and asked for further time – Plaintiff bonafide executed a special
power of attorney dtd. 28.01.87 in favour of the second defendant
for selling the property for Rs. 55,000/- – As per the plaintiff, as the
negotiation fell through in view of the first defendant not being
able to arrange the money, the second defendant surrendered the
original power of attorney to the plaintiff on 02.02.87 – However,
as per plaintiff, the second defendant applied for the copy of the
power of attorney, and fraudulently in collusion with the first
defendant executed the sale deed on 28.04.87 for Rs.30,000/- –
Plaintiff filed suit inter alia for declaration by way of permanent
injunction that he is the owner in possession of the property and
the mutation showing the sale in favour of the first defendant by
the second defendant was null and void – Trial Court declined the
relief of declaration by way of permanent injunction – Appellate
Court found that the case of the plaintiff that the power of attorney
was cancelled was unsustainable and that there was a valid sale
deed and endorsement – High Court set aside the findings of the
courts below and decreed the suit by declaring the plaintiff as the
owner in possession of the land and mutation showing the sale in
favour of the first defendant was declared null and void – On appeal,
held: The production of original power of attorney before the
Registering Authority was unnecessary for effecting registration of
the sale deed – Further, the plaintiff admitted that he did not get the
power of attorney cancelled at the Sub-Registrar Office – Even,
more importantly, he admitted to not having sent any notice of
cancellation – The only evidence consists of a statement of plaintiff
that the first defendant was aware of the cancellation and the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
statement of PW6, who had said that the first defendant was also
there on 02.02.87, when on two papers a line was drawn to signify
the cancellation – Furthermore, the Trial Court and also the appellate
court relied upon the DX (letter dated 02.06.87) sent by the plaintiff
himself, which appears to undermine the evidence about the
cancellation on 02.02.1987 – High Court should not have, at any
rate, disturbed the said finding in a Second Appeal – The case of
the plaintiff that power of attorney stood cancelled, in the manner
done on 02.02.1987 cannot be accepted – First defendant, who is
the third party, could not be attributed any knowledge of the
surrender or the alleged cancellation on 02.02.1987 – Impugned
Judgment set aside – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.201, 202, 207, 208 –
Registration Act, 1908 – ss.18, 18 A, 32-35.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When a person empowers another to execute a
document and the power of attorney, acting on the power,
executes the document, the power of attorney holder can present
the document for registration under Section 32(a). Section 32(a)
of the Registration Act deals with the person executing a
document and also the person claiming under the same. It also
provides for persons claiming under a decree or an order being
entitled to present a document. Section 32(b) speaks about the
representative or assignee of ‘such a person’. The word such a
person in Section 32(b) is intended to refer to the persons covered
by Section 32(a). Finally, Section 32(c) provides for the agent of
‘such a person’ which necessarily means the persons who are
encompassed by Section 32(a). Besides agent of the person
covered by Section 32(a), Section 32(c) also takes in the agent of
the representative or assignee. Now the words representative
or assignee are to be found in Section 32(b). Thus, Section 32(c)
deals with agents of the persons covered by Section 32(a) and
agents of the representative or assignee falling under Section
32(b). It is in respect of such an agent that there must be due
authorisation by a power of attorney, which in turn, is to be
executed and authenticated in the manner provided for in Section
33. However, the person,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.