Dismissed

Sri Sambhavi Properties Ltd, Hyd v. Bandi Anjaneyulu, Hyd and 23 Others

Telangana HC8 Mar 2021CRP/6326/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order allowing interim applications to file a fresh Power of Attorney and bring legal representatives on record in an original civil suit. The High Court held that Section 4 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 and Rule 32 were not violated and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sri Sambhavi Properties Ltd, Hyd Vs Bandi Anjaneyulu… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDT#IBIITE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

MglYPtY, rHE ErcHrH DAY oF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

rHE HoNouRABLE sRr LI$EII,^LLA K.DANDA RAM

¶4

tvr REVISI ON PETI TION N 6 2 6

¶5

Petition under Arricre 227 of constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the order dated 0911112016 in rA No.331/20'r6 in os No.8/2009 on the fire of the court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at [\ilahabubnagar.

¶6

I^Ilctwecn:

¶7

M/s.Sri Sambhavi^properlies Ltd.,

¶8

I{cp. by, irs Direotor, V.Raghu,

¶9

S/o.Chandra Shekar I{ao, Aged about 45 year.s, I{/o,Plot No.90, Avenue-I, Road No.1lZ, Iianjara Ilills, I lydcrabad-34 ..^{petitioner/I{-12} in I.A.

¶10

AND

¶11

l. llancli Anjancyulu (died) L.l{.Nos.2, 3 & 5 to l2

¶12

IlairCi Llshwaraiah, S/o.I3.A n jancy Lii u, Agrxl ribout 59 ycals, Occ: Agr-icultur.r:,

¶13

l land i l,axminarayana, S/o. 13. Anj an cvulu, Agccl aboLrt 55 years, Occ: Agr-iculture,

¶14

P.Ashok Kumar, S/o.P.Pandaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculturc,

¶15

Bandi Amruthamma, W/o.l-atc Bandi Anjaneyulu, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Agricullr-u.r:,

¶16

llandi I{amuiu, S/o.Late Bandi Ar.r.janevulu, Aged about 62 yearc, Occ: Agricultrrro,

¶17

Ilandi Venkateshwar, S/o.l ,ate Bancli Anjaneyulu, Agecl about 58 yeals, Occ: Agricultrrr.e,

¶18

llandi Janardhan, S/o.l-ate Bandi Anianeyulu, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Agr.icLrltLrre,

¶19

Bandi Gopal, S/o.Latc Bandi Anjant:yulu, Agcd about 55 ycars, Occ: Aglicultur.c,

¶20

.:..

¶21

I0. Ilandi Manik Plabl'ru, S/o.l,atc Band^j z\danc),ulu, Agcd about 54 years, Occ: Agriculr.r"rrt,

¶22

Llr3---

¶23

I :

¶24

, ' 1 "^Bandi l*v::Ti#: 3::1ffi::'i,tiAnlanevulu'( Ag.d^{about 50 Years'}

¶25

1 2^{Smt N Satv'.Y11]3)x}'*i[:l'',} Aged^{about 49 Years'}

¶26

AI I arc^{R/o c urramparI v Vi r'ft5;} Lit r; Y1lil',"**' AND^{All 3re rcpresentelJr'r.'0r".n,.,} a".Ur. S/o^{K R Kond'i'I:} 1'Jilii;,.','riya".,,u,.. Sapthagiririagar'^MehdtP

¶27

Aggi^{Narsinrulu (died) LRs No'13}

¶28

Aggi^{Jangamma' W/o'Aggi Narsimhulu' Aged about 67 years}

¶29

Aggi^{Itajanlani'W/oRarnulr'r'Aged about 42 years'}

¶30

Dasari^{Satyamma'' W/o Natsimhtrlir' Aged about 62 years'}

¶31

Chakali^{llalaiah' S/o'Mysaiah' Aged about 67 years'}

¶32

i 8. Pichakuntla^{l{amulu' S/o'Balaiah' Aged about 45 years'}

¶33

Pichakuntla^{Narsimhulu'S/o'Bucidaiah'Aged about 30 years'}

¶34

Golla^{Komaraiahy' S/o'sornaiah'Aged about 47 years'}

¶35

Cherusan^{Yadaiah' S/o'C'Jangaiah' Aged about 40 years'}

¶36

J-Ram^{Redcty,S/o'Buchi Reddy' Aged about 44 years'}

¶37

23.M.JanarclhanReddy,S/o.Gopall{etirJy,Agedabout44years,'lji;;;Acticulturists and R/o NanJigama Village'

¶38

Kothur^{Mandai, R'R'District'}

¶39

Aggishankar,^{S/o'Aggi Narsimhulu'.Agedabout 45 years'}

¶40

O;; Agriculture,^{R/o'Nandigan-ra Village'}

¶41

I(othur^{Mandal, R'R'Distlict}

¶42

..Respondents

¶43

(R.It l3 to^{24 are not necessarvprutics Lo this CRP)}

¶44

CRPMP.^{NO: 8302 OF 2016}

¶45

pe,,onuf :':::H:,l'J;L:'&!['tp[i#:iti]{ltH,i,1't"il!,!: il: ft::j.t#i ffi^{jrt : rut: :r s:i'n' u*;} Petition.

¶46

IA :1 oF2²⁰

¶47

;""" ?1""-iJ:"t'.'l.3^itH U[fL d. ff,,it'"'j"fl^{'ftfl 'il': i fffi:} .g;$g'1f$u''",H'u";*ilIffi of 2016-

¶48

For^{the Petitioner:SRIP.ROY REDDY'Advocate}

¶49

For^{the ResPondent Nos'2 to 12: SRt B.SHIVKUMAR' Advocate}

¶50

The^{Court made the following: ORDER}

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE CHALLAKODANDA RAM CIVIL RIVISION PETITION No. 6326 of 2016 ORDER:

¶52

The brief facrs of the case are that O.S.No.g of 2009 was instituted by the General power of Attomey (GpA) Holder, by name, Sri K.K. Ravi Sagar. for and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, who executed GpA in favour of the above said person vide document dated 29.0j.2008, against respondent Nos.13 to 24 as well as petitioner herein for declaration of title and injunction in respect of land admeasuring Acs.18.18 guntas, covered by Suruey No.1258, situated at Nandigam Village, Kothur Mandal, and for correction of entries in the revenue record. Thereafter, respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 died on 3l.O2.2Ol l. In view of the same,^{the other legal representatives} of respondent No.l and respondent^{Nos.2 to 4 executed GPA} afresh on 09.09.2016 in^{favour of the aforesaidGPA holder'} Then, the said GPA^{Holder filed I.A.Nos.331,332,334and 333} of 2016 to^{permithim to representthe other legal representatives} of respondent^{No.1, to set aside the abatementorder,to condone} the delay in filing^{the application for bringingon record the legal} representatives of^{respondent No' 1, who are respondentNos'5 to} 12 herein, and to^{bring on recordthe other legal representatives} of respondent^{No.l, who are respondent Nos'5 to 12 herein'as}

¶53

C R^{P \o.6326of 2016}

¶54

plaintiff^{Nos.5 to 12, respectively' The Courtbelow allowed} I.A.Nos.332,^{333 and 334 of 2016 vide common order dated} 09.11.20i6,^{and also allowed I'A'No'331 of 2016on the same} day by^{a separate order' Aggrieved by the orderallowing} I.A.No.331^{of 2016, defendantNo'12 l]led this Civil Revision} Petition.

¶55

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner contends that the order} under revision^{is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed} under Section 4 of^{the Powersof Attomey Act, i882 (for short} 'the Act'), and under Rule 32 of the Civil^{Rules of Practice(for} short'the Rules') and that no opportunity of hearing^{was given} to the petitioner to verify and contest the genuineness or otherwise of the GPA executed afresh, as such, he prays for remanding the matter to the Court below for fiesh consideration.

¶56

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Sri K.K. Ravi Sagar, who was the power of Attomey Holder, was prosecuting the aforesaid suit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and on the demise of respondent No.1, a fresh GPA came to be executed on 09.09.2016 for and on behalf of the other legal representatives of respondent No.1, along with respondent Nos.2 to 4; that there is no objection raised by the defendants, who includes the petitioner herein, by filing counters, as such, the order under revision cannot be found fault with; that

¶57

¶58

u.R.P.No , 6326 or CKR. .]2016

¶59

no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as well as rhe orher defendants in the sui Revision petition ",,,^{:, ::";T:} -:,::ffi ;'::,::,,^",',, So far as the first contention of the Iearned counsel for the petitioner that the order under revision is not in contbrmity with the procedure prescribed under Section 4 ofthe Act is concerned, it is necessary to notice Section 4 of theAct, more particularly, clause (a) thereof. However, Section 4 ofthe Act reads as under: "4. Deposit of original in s r of-urtornay.-'^{-"5"turttttrl.llTlentscrealing powers-}

¶60

l:.)j:.,lr.,Tr.nr^{creatrng a power_of_arlorney.its} executron beirrg verified by affidavit. ,,u*,ory declaration or other sufficient evidence,'-uy, ;iii, the alfidar ir or declaratron. ilany. be .i.porii.l'i"',fr. Hrgh L ourl 9[or. Districr Cour.t] wirhin the local Iimirs of whose jurisdiction the instrument mav be.

¶61

(b) A separate file of instr-uments so deposited shall be kept: and any person May search that file, and inspect ever1, rnstrument so deposited; and a certified copy thereof shall be delivered out to him on request.

¶62

(c) A copy of an instrument so deposited may be presented at the office and may be stamped or marked as a certified copy, and, when so stamped or marked, shall become and be a certified copy.

¶63

(d) A certified copy of an instrument so deposited shall, without lurther proof, be sufficient evidence of the contents of the instrument and of the deposit thereof in the High Coun¹ [or District Court].

¶64

(e) The High Courl may, from time to time, make rules for the purposes of this section,^{andprescribing,} with the concumence of the State Government,^the fees to be taken under clauses^{(a), (b) and(c).}

¶65

(0x

¶66

(g) This section applies to instruments^creating powers-of-attorney executed either^{before or after} this Act comes into^force."

¶67

C^{R.P No 6326of2016}

¶68

' A^{carefui reading oftheabove provision'rn'} ore Particularly' Clause^{(a), reveals that it is not mandated that the original of} Power^{of Attorneyexecuted was required to be depositedwith} the^{High Court or the DistrictCourt' The language used thereinis} onlY'maY"

¶69

It is well^{settledthat exceptin certain circumstances''may'} does^{not mean 'must''The word 'may' means discretionary'} Further,^{it is not brought to the notice of this Court that there is} any rule^{madeunder Section 4(e) of the Act prescribing the fees} that is required^{to be paid. In view of the same, the argumentof} the leamed^{counselthat the mandatory procedure,which is not} held to be^{reallymandatory,is not compliedwith, has no merit'} Accordingly, the^{same is rejected.}

¶70

So far as the second^{contention of the learned counselfor} the petitioner that non-compliance of^{Ruie 32 of the Rules is} concerred, Rule 32 of the Rules does not^{mandate notice} to^be given to the other side. However, a careful reading of the said Rule discloses that it is between the Court and the person, who is seeking to represent the other pafty to be satisfied that prima facie,^{rt would be specifiedthat the person is representing} the party as an authority. The other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the genuineness or otherwise 0f the power of attomey was not tested and allowing the Application at

¶71

¶72

ckR .r C.R.P.No 6326 or 20;;

¶73

this stage would cause preiudice to their case as they wourd not be in a position to .later question the same, are also liable to be rejected, as, there is no dispute that the power of attomey holder filed the suit originally and further, a fresh power of attomey also came to be executed and if at all any objection, it has to be from the power of attomey holder and not by the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit. Further, the scope of the power of attorney is limited to the conducting of the proceedings in the suit oniy. In view of the same, the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are only imaginary. However, the petitioner would have ample opportunity to raise ali objections to the impermissible acts that may be perpetrated by the power of attorney holder.

¶74

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any

¶75

reason to intert-ere with the order under revision.

¶76

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶77

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha1l stand

¶78

ciosed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

Sd/-I.NAGA LAKSHIVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶80

,TRUE COPY'

¶81

SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram l (For his Lordships kind perusal) To

¶82

a1 The Il Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at [Vlahabubnagar. z '10 L.R.Copies. J The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶83

The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶84

One CC to Sri P.Roy Reddy, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶85

One CC to Sri B.Shiv Kumar, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶86

Two CD Copies Kj

HIGH^COURT

DATED:08/03/2021

,.2:
ir.{E sTAi ex<br>F
2 7 APH 2021 t'
tJ
6N
-* ,--

¶92

ORDER

¶93

CRP.No.6326 of 2016

¶94

DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶95

{*r'"
(i

Sri Sambhavi Properties Ltd, Hyd v. Bandi Anjaneyulu, Hyd and 23 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sambhavi Properties Ltd, Hyd v. Bandi Anjaneyulu, Hyd and 23 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Myadam Babu Rao Vs Telangana Padmashali (Tps) and 6 Others

Sri. Shankrerlal Agarwal Vs Sri. Gorla Srinivas

Pratap Rao Vs Preetham Singh

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mr. Ippa Sailoo and Another

N. Brahmaiah Chary Vs P.M.Ziaullah

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kolisetty Ramanjamma and 4 Ors.