SMT. BHATORI versus SMT. RAM PIARI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 30-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. BHATORI 
v. 
SMT. RAM PIARI 
JULY 30, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Documents: 
Power of attomey-Fraudulent use of-Respondent-2 had general 
C power of attomey to engage a counsel to conduct litigation on behalf of the 
appellant, as also to mo1tgage, alienate or transfer possession of her agiicul-
t11ral lands-Later appellant asked respondent-2 to retum the power of attor-
ney but he did not retllm ir-Respo11dent 2 filed a suit for declaration of title 
impleading appellant as a defendant, and engaged lawye1> for himself as also 
D for the appellant-Suit was dismissed for default-Thereafter respondent 2 
executed sale deeds i11 respect of self same lands in favour of his wife-Ap-
pellant besides initiating c1iminal proceedings filed suit for declaration-Suit 
dismissed by all courts below-Held, respondent-2 having had power of 
attomey in his favour from appellant played fraud upon her and got lands 
transferred in the name of his wife-Having been defrauded appellant is, 
E entitled to lay the suit for declaration of title and other relief;--Fraud unravels 
the contract and it is voi~Suit decreed with exemplary costs. 
f 
Sale deeds-Executed by power of attomey holder alienating the lands 
in the name of his wife defrauding the land owner-Held, fraud unravels the 
contract and it is void. 
Mithilesh Kumar & Anr. v. Prem Behari Khare, [1989] 2 SCC 95 and 
R. Rajagopala Reddy v. Padmini Chandrashekharan, [1995] 2 SCC 630, 
cited. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 676 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.86 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1282 of 1986. 
H 
R.P. Gupta for the Appellant. 
180 
• 
BHATORI v. RAM P!ARI 
181 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
Heard counsel for the appellant. 
Pursuant to notice issued on November 22, 1988, Mr. Uma Dutta had 
appeared for the respondent. Subsequently, he reported on January 6, 1995 B 
that he was instructed not to appear in the matter. He sought for and was 
granted permission to withdraw from the case. Thereafter, none appeared 
for the respondent. Initially, the case was adjourned since consequent upon 
reference doubting correctness of Mithilesh Kumar & Anr. v. Prem Beha1i 
Khare, [1989] 2 SCC 95 decision by a three-Judge Bench was awaited. The 
controversy is no longer res judicata. In view of the judgment of three-Judge .C 
Bench in R. Rajagopala Reddy v. Padmini Chandrashekhara11, [1995] 2 SCC 
630, wherein it was held that the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act is 
prospective in operation, the question in this case is : where the sale of the 
appellant's land to the wife of the second respondent, Ram Mehrar, holder 
of power of attorney of the appellant is valid io law ? 
D 
It is seen that Ram Mehrar had general power of attorney not only 
to engage a counsel and conduct litigation on behalf of the appellant, but 
can also mortgage, alienate or transfer possession of the agricultural land 
do anyone whosoever after obtaining the exemption from the appropriate 
authorities. It is seen that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land 
Acquisition Act acquiring the land was published in January 1979. Notice, 
thereafter, was given to the appellant on March 28, 1979. When the 
appellant demanded from the second respondent in August 1979 the return 
of her Power of Attorney, he did not return it. On the other hand, he 
promise that he would not act detrimental to her interest. The second 
respondent appears to have filed a suit on August 23, 1979 in which he 
impleaded the appellant as party-defendant. It is the case of the appellant 
that the second respondent engaged two advocates, one Mr. Mitter Sain 
E 
F 
on behalf of himself and other Ram Kishan for the appellant. The counsel 
appearing for her informed her that the suit was not for the purpose of 
obtaining compensation from the Land Acquisition authorities, but for G 
declaration of his title to her lands. When the appellant questioned him, 
he did not properly respond to her enquiry. Thereafter, she contested the 
suit. It was adjourned for appearance of the respondent to October 11, 
1979, on which dated he did not appear. As a consequence the suit was 
dismissed for default. Subsequently he seems to have created alienation by H 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A executing sale-deeds dated October 11, 1979 and October 22, 1979 in 
respect of the self-same land in favour of Ram Piari, his wife for a 

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