Dismissed

Indro v. Shoe Lal Now Deceased Thru Lrs Sharda and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2018RSA/1387/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal regarding a suit challenging a sale deed executed by a defendant under a power of attorney, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The bench affirmed the lower courts' finding that the plaintiff failed to prove she was a minor at the time of the power of attorney's creation, dismissing the claim of gross illegality.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2005 were affirmed.

Indro Vs Shoe Lal Now Deceased… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Regul ar Second Appeal No. 1387 of 2016 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 22. 05. 2018

Smt . I ndr o

…. . Appel l ant

ver sus

Sheo Lal and ot her s ( Deceased t hr ough LRs)

¶7

. . . . . Respondent s

¶8

CORAM: - HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE AMI T RAWAL

¶9

Pr esent : Mr . Sur esh Kumar Anej a, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant

¶10

AMI T RAWAL, J. ( Or al ) :

¶11

The appel l ant - pl ai nt i f f i s aggr i eved of t he concur r ent f i ndi ng of f act wher eby her sui t chal l engi ng t he sal e deed dat ed 14. 10. 2005 execut ed by def endant No. 2 i n f avour of def endant No. 1 bei ng a power of at t or ney hol der wi t h an al t er nat i ve r el i ef f or r ecover y of Rs. 12 l akhs al ong wi t h i nt er est @ 12% per annum has been di smi ssed by t he t r i al Cour t and af f i r med by t he l ower appel l at e Cour t .

¶12

The appel l ant - pl ai nt i f f i nst i t ut ed a sui t on t he pr emi se t hat she was t he owner of t he l and measur i ng 31 kanal s 2 mar l as as descr i bed i n t he headnot e of t he pl ai nt . The sui t l and was i n possessi on of one Par hl ad Kumar son of Daul at Ram as t enant gai r mar usi . The j ur i sdi ct i on of t he r evenue cour t was i nvoked f or cl ai mi ng t he r ecover y by f i l i ng a sui t whi ch was decr eed vi de or der dat ed 31. 10. 2005. The dat e of bi r t h of t he pl ai nt i f f i s 20. 07. 1966 as depi ct ed i n t he school cer t i f i cat e wher eas def endant No. 2 managed t o obt ai n a GPA of t he pl ai nt i f f i n hi s f avour dat ed

¶13

Parkash Chand 2018.06.01 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

RSA- 1387- 2016

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

1. 1983 whi ch was got r egi st er ed i n t he of f i ce of Sub Regi st r ar , Fazi l ka, vi de Wasi ka No. 15 of even dat e. The power of at t or ney coul d not have been execut ed as she had not at t ai ned maj or i t y at t he t i me of execut i on of t he af or ement i oned document , but wi t hout any aut hor i t y and payment of consi der at i on, def endant No. 2 br eached t he power gi ven i n t he at t or ney by sel l i ng t he pr oper t y vi de sal e deed dat ed 14. 10. 2005 i n f avour of def endant No. 1.

¶17

The af or esai d ment i oned sui t was f i l ed on 22. 12. 2005. The def endant No. 1 cont est ed t he sui t and f i l ed a separ at e wr i t t en st at ement . I t was st at ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f and def endant No. 2 wer e i n cl ose r el at i on and t he sui t was f i l ed as t hey want ed t o wr i ggl e out of t he pr ovi si ons of t he St amp Dut y Act r ef l ect ed i n t he sal e deed.

¶18

Def endant No. 2 cont est ed t he sui t and f i l ed a separ at e wr i t t en st at ement st at i ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f was mar r i ed and was l i vi ng wi t h her f ami l y i n di st r i ct Sr i Ganganagar i n Raj ast han whi ch i s a f ar of f pl ace f r om t he vi l l age. She was not abl e t o manage and cont r ol t he sui t l and and, t her ef or e, appoi nt ed def endant No. 2 as her GPA. The dat e of bi r t h as al l eged by t he pl ai nt i f f was deni ed.

¶19

Upon consi der at i on of t he evi dence br ought on r ecor d by t he par t i es and af t er f r ami ng t he i ssues, t he t r i al Cour t di smi ssed t he sui t by hol di ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f has mi ser abl y f ai l ed t o pr ove her dat e of bi r t h.

¶20

Mr . Anej a, t he l ear ned counsel appear i ng on behal f of t he appel l ant , submi t t ed t hat no doubt t he pl ai nt i f f , i n her cr ossexami nat i on, admi t t ed t hat she had st udi ed up t o 5^{t h} cl ass i n t he

¶21

Parkash Chand 2018.06.01 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

RSA- 1387- 2016

¶23

- 3 -

¶24

Fat ehgar h School , but t he school l eavi ng cer t i f i cat e pr oves t he dat e of bi r t h as 20. 07. 1966. Thus, on t he dat e of execut i on and r egi st r at i on of t he power of at t or ney i . e. 19. 04. 1983, she was appr oxi mat el y 17 year s of age and, t her ef or e, i n l aw was mi nor . The sal e deed was execut ed i n 2005 when she had al r eady become maj or , but t he consi der at i on r ecei ved had not been passed. Keepi ng i n vi ew t hat ci r cumst ance, t he al t er nat i ve pr ayer f or r ecover y of Rs. 12 l akhs was made. The Cour t s bel ow mi sr ead and mi s- appr eci at ed t he or al and document ar y evi dence. Ther ef or e, t her e i s a gr oss i l l egal i t y. Al l t he act s done by an agent on behal f of pr i nci pal who di d not have a power t o execut e woul d be voi d i n l aw. 7. I have hear d t he l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant and appr ai sed t he paper - book and am of t he vi ew t hat t her e i s no f or ce and mer i t i n t he submi ssi ons made by Mr . Anej a.

¶25

PW6 Vaj i nder Kumar Shar ma, Juni or Cl er k, f r om t he school f r om wher e t he pl ai nt i f f had st udi ed, submi t t ed t hat he had not br ought t he compl et e r ecor d wi t h r egar d t o t he dat e of bi r t h. The pl ai nt i f f admi t t ed t hat she st udi ed up t o 5^{t h} cl ass and, t her eaf t er she was admi t t ed i n some ot her school . Ther ef or e, i t was obl i gat or y t o br i ng on r ecor d anot her di r ect and cogent evi dence ot her t han t he sel f ser vi ng i nf or mat i on by exami ni ng ei t her t he Counsel l or or t he concer ned depar t ment or t he concer ned of f i ci al ( s) f r om t he depar t ment of Regi st r ar of Bi r t hs and Deat hs. I cannot r emai n obl i vi ous of t he f act t hat t he sal e deed was execut ed on 14. 10. 2005 when she was al r eady maj or . Dur i ng al l t hi s per i od di d not r evoke t he power of at t or ney. On a speci f i c quer y r ai sed t o Mr . Anej a, he st at ed t hat t he power of at t or ney i s st i l l val i d.

¶26

Parkash Chand 2018.06.01 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

RSA- 1387- 2016

¶28

- 4 -

¶29

I n my vi ew, t he f i ndi ngs of t he Cour t s bel ow ar e based on pr oper appr eci at i on of t he evi dence. The ar gument s of t he l ear ned counsel ar e not abl e t o br i ng t he case wi t hi n t he r eal m of per ver si t y t o enabl e me t o f or m a di f f er ent vi ew t han t he one ar r i ved at . No gr ound f or i nt er f er ence i s made out .

¶30

Di smi ssed.

¶31

1. 2018 par kash

¶32

( AMI T RAWAL) JUDGE

¶33

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶34

Parkash Chand 2018.06.01 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Indro v. Shoe Lal Now Deceased Thru Lrs Sharda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indro v. Shoe Lal Now Deceased Thru Lrs Sharda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaspal Vs Municipal Corporation, Faridabad

Ram Bai and Ors. Vs Vikram Singh Raghav and Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Swaran Singh and Ors.

Amardeep Singh Vs Manjit Kaur

Jyoti Vs Ravi Sher Singh

Krishan Lal Vs Tarlochan Singh