The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging a decree that upheld a sale of his land. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove fraud in the execution of a power of attorney given to an Advocate for loan security.
Appeal dismissed; decree confirming the validity of the sale deed and power of attorney; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for judgment on 10.07.2023 Pronouncement for judgment on 08.11.2023
FA No.171 of 2020
---- Appellant
Versus
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
Present:- For Appellants: Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 2, 4, 5 & 7: Shri Uttam Pandey along with Shri Vikas Bajpai, Advocates
2
For Respondent No.3 :- Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No.6/State: Shri Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Judgment /Order
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
3
defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre, who is an Advocate by profession, used to provide loan on interest and introduced the plaintiff with him and when he (plaintiff) demanded loan amount of Rs.50,000/-, it was told by him that the said amount is not available with him, but, he could provide the same from one “ Seth” and demanded his Rin Pustika and Identity Card. It is pleaded further by the plaintiff that the said defendant took him to the Tahsil Office, Rajnandgaon, where he called defendant No.1-Rishi Mishra and defendant No.4-Manoj Singh Chandel and discussed for advancing loan amount to him and have assured to advance the loan. It is pleaded further that in the said office, he was asked by defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre to purchase the stamp paper worth Rs.100/- for executing a power of attorney in the name of defendant No.1-Rishi Mishra and directed him to give his Rin Pustika with an assurance that the same will be returned after repayment of the loan amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is pleaded further that as per the assurance given by defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre, he executed a power of attorney in the name of defendant No.1-Rishi Mishra in presence of him (Amit Deshlahre) and Baliram and thereafter, he (Amit Deshlahre) advanced him only a sum of Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- and told him that rest of the loan amount be given only after revenue papers, like Khasra Panchshala and B-1, are provided to him, owing to which, he got annoyed and went to his house on 20.01.2012 along with said Baliram and returned the said loan amount of Rs.30,000/-. However, he demanded the interest upon it and, therefore, he went to his house again on 06.02.2012 along with interest amount of Rs.1,200/-, but he refused to receive the same and instructed him to give the interest amount to defendant No.4-Manoj Singh Chandel. It is pleaded further that as per the said instruction, he paid the said interest amount to him
4
(Defendant No.4- Manoj Singh Chandel) and demanded his papers from defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre, but he instructed on phone to said defendant No.4 for returning the papers to him (Plaintiff). However, he did not turn up and he was, thus, moving from here and there for 15-20 days for Rin Pustika and thereafter, on 14.02.2012 he was sent by him (Amit Deshlahre) to defendant No.5-Naresh Ramteke for obtaining the Rin Pustika, who in turn, told him that the entire loan amount has been paid and he can advance him more loan amount, if he desires and since his house was incomplete, therefore, he demanded the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from him, who in turn, after deducting the amount of Rs.2.000/-, incurred towards preparation of the said power of attorney and that by deducting Rs.2,500/- towards interest of one month upon the said loan amount, has advanced the loan amount of Rs.45,500/- and obtained his signature in the Register.
5
was sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2-Smt. Pushpa Mishra.
6
that the suit as framed and instituted without paying the ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the alleged sale is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.3(Amit Deshlahre), against whom, the allegation of fraud is made, has contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, who is a literate man, retired from the Forest Department has himself executed the alleged power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1-Rishi Mishra and he has not played any role for its execution, while defendant No.5-Naresh Ramteke has stated that he has not at all concerned with the alleged transaction and, therefore, the suit as framed is liable to be dismissed. The other defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
(i) Whether the defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre has got the alleged power of attorney on 06.01.2012 executed in favour of defendant No.1Rishi Mishra while playing fraud upon the plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the defendants No.1,3,4 and 5 have got the registered deed of sale dated 16.03.2012 executed in the name of defendant No.2 with regard to plaint schedule ”A” property fraudulently?
(iii) Whether the registered deed of sale executed in favour of defendant No.2 on 16.03.2012 is binding upon the plaintiff? (iv) Whether alienation of the suit land by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.7 is null and void?
7
playing fraud upon the plaintiff. It held further while taking note of the acceptance of the closure report by the court with regard to the alleged complaint submitted by the plaintiff before the concerned police authority, coupled with the acceptance of the sale consideration by the plaintiff vide Ikrarnama (Ex. D/2), that the alleged registered deed of sale dated 16.03.2012 (Ex.P/2) was validly executed and held further that the requisite court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff. In consequence, the plaintiff’s claim has been dismissed.
“Whether the finding of the Court below upholding the validity of the alleged power of attorney (Ex.P/1) and thereby upholding the execution of the registered deed of sale dated 16.03.2012 (Ex.P/2), is perverse”?
8
Mishra while acting as power of attorney holder of the plaintiff by executing a registered deed of sale dated 16.03.2012 (Ex.P/2) in favour of his wife Smt. Pushpa Mishra-Defendant No.2. According to the plaintiff, he was in need of money as he has to construct the house and therefore, for obtaining the loan, he requested one Baliram of his village, who introduced him with one defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre and as per his instruction, he executed the registered deed of power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1-Rishi Mishra in presence of the two witnesses, namely, Baliram and Manoj and he was assured by him (Amit Deshlahre) to return the same and would cancel the same upon repayment of the loan amount. It was, thus, alleged by the plaintiff that the alleged power of attorney was executed by him for security of the loan amount of Rs.50,000/-, which he had borrowed. It, however, appears that the alleged power of attorney was duly registered under Section 32(A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1963 on 06.01.2012 in presence of two witnesses containing not only their photographs, but their signatures as well.
9
alleged transaction made at the time of execution of the alleged power of attorney (Ex.P-1). Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that it was executed for the security of the loan amount or was found to be executed by playing any kind of fraud upon him by defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre as alleged by him in the plaint.
10
whereby it has been admitted by him that the sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/- has been paid to him. Moreover, the revenue papers were mutated as well vide (Ex.P/4) in the name of Smt. Pushpa Mishra on the basis of the alleged registered deed of sale dated 16.03.2012 and the same has even not been questioned by the plaintiff.
No order as to costs.
A decree be drawn accordingly.
SD/SD/- (Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Judge
Tumane
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the Court below upholding the validity of the alleged power of attorney and thereby upholding the execution of the registered deed of sale is perverse?
Whether the plaintiff failed to establish fraud by the defendant Advocate in obtaining the power of attorney for the purpose of a loan security?
Whether the appeal is devoid of merit in light of the plaintiff's delayed cancellation of the power of attorney and execution of settlement deed?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sumardas S/o Late Khorbahra Ram Khare
Rishi Mishra
Sushma Mishra
Amit Deslahre
Manoj Singh Chandel
State Of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
Sanjay S. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
