Delhi High Court
Paramjeet Kaur vs Kuldeep Singh on 14 March, 2018
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2018
+ RSA 45/2018 & C.M.Nos.9751-56/2018
PARAMJEET KAUR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. V.K. Garg, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Sharma and Ms. Noopur
Dubey, Advocates.
Versus
KULDEEP SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
C.M.No.9754-55/2018 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed off.
C.M.No.9756/2018 (for delay) & RSA 45/2018 & C.M.No.9751-52/2018
3. There is a delay of 120 days in removing objections and re-filing of
the appeal. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant states that for the
reasons mentioned in the application, it should be allowed. In the Court's
view, the stated reasons do not make out a sufficient cause for condoning the
delay. However, the appellant insists that otherwise she has a good case on
merits. Assuming that the application is allowed, the Court examines the
case as under:-
RSA No.45 of 2018 Page 1 of 5
4. This Second Appeal impugns an order dated 12.07.2017 which
dismissed the first appeal (being RCA.60954/16) against the decree dated
15.12.2015. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the
Sale Deed executed in favour of the appellant on 13.10.2006 was null and
void. Admittedly, late Shri Rattan Singh, owner of the suit property, bearing
no. A-62, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi, admeasuring 103 sq. yds., had
executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of his wife Smt.
Pyari on 30.06.1995. The former passed away on 06.09.2006. The aforesaid
Sale Deed dated 13.10.2006 was executed by his widow Smt. Ram Pyari, 34
days after his demise on the strength of the GPA.
5. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed was
void because the Power of the Attorney became infructuous, non-operative
and shorn of authority with the demise of the executant. The appellant did
not file her Written Statement to the suit nor did she lead any evidence. Her
right to file Written Statement was closed since despite ample opportunities
she failed to do so. In the appellant's Revision Petition [C.M.(Main) No.
175/2015], this Court issued notice on 03.03.2015. However, consciously,
the proceedings in the suit had not been stayed. The suit was decreed on
15.12.2015. Later, the aforesaid Revision Petition was dismissed by this
Court on 18.04.2016 as having become infructuous. The appellant's First
Appeal against the decree too was dismissed. In this Second Appeal, she
has impugned both: the decree as well as the order in the First Appeal. It is
argued that the GPA was, inter alia, executed to secure the interests of the
agent in the property, therefore, the agency could not be terminated to the
prejudice of such interest. In other words, there would be subsistence of the
Power of Attorney even after the demise of the executant, as provided under
RSA No.45 of 2018 Page 2 of 5
section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ('the Act'). It also noted that
the Sale Deed had mentioned that Shri Rattan Singh was alive on that date,
as on 13.10.2006.
6. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the
consistent judicial policy in this country is to see that the disputes are
adjudicated after according complete opportunity to the parties and by
adjudication of issues on the merits. He contends that the appellant was
misled by her previous counsel i.e. he did not file the requisite Written
Statement within time leading to precipitate result of her not being able to
present or prove her case. He requests that the appellant be put to terms, and
she be granted another opportunity to prove her case, which otherwise is
good on merits. To support his contention that the GPA was issued to
secure the abiding interest of the Attorney/agent and, therefore, would fall
within the proviso to section 202 of the Act, he refers to a Receipt for
Rs.60,000/- dated 30.06.1995, issued by Shri Rattan Singh in favour of his
widow. The document reads as under:-
RECEIPT
RECEIVED A SUM OF Rs. 60,000/- Sixty Thousand
Only), in Cash/Advance from SMT. PYARI W/O Sh.
RATTAN SINGH R/O A-62, VISHNU GARDEN, NEW
DELHI - 110018 on account of full and final settlement in
respect of PLOT NO. 62, MEASURING 102.5 SQ. YDS. ,
KILLA NO. 19/1, MUSTATIL NO. 30, SITUATED IN THE
AREA OF VILLAGE KHIALA, DELHI STATE DELHI,
COLONY KNOWN AS „A‟ BLOCK, VISHNU GARDEN,
NEW DELHI - 110018, WITH STRUCTURE OF ONE
ROOM, BOUNDARY WALLS, AND HAND PU MP BUILT
IN THE SAID LAND, with the free hold rights of the land
thereto and the receipt of which do hereby- acknowledged.
RSA No.45 of 2018 Page 3 of 5
Hence this Receipt is made at Delhi, on this 30/6/95 in
the presence of the following witnesses."
7. The document records that a sum of Rs.60,000/- had been received by
Shri Ratan Singh from his wife in full and final settlement of the suit
property. However, it neither intends to nor does it transfer any right, title or
interest in favour of Smt. Pyari, now his widow. Therefore, even if the said
document were to be take into consideration as evidence, it could hardly be
read to create any interest in favour of Smt. Pyari, so as to fashion an
abiding interest in the property or to secure the same in her favour, through
the GPA. Interestingly, the GPA itself does not mention the said cash
receipt, which allegedly was made about more than 11 years and four
months earlier. If Shri Ratan Singh and Smt. Pyari intended to link the Cash
Receipt with the GPA, to record that Smt. Pyari, the attorney/ agent, would
have an abiding interest in the agency of attorneyship, then the GPA should
have said so. In the absence of any such agreement an inference to that
effect cannot be made.
8. The learned Senior Counsel then refers to the Will executed by late
Shri Rattan Singh. However, the Will too does not mention anything about
securing of interest of the Agent/Power of Attorney Holder in favour of her
interests in the suit property.
9. The impugned order has reasoned as under:-
"12. Admittedly, on the date of the execution of the Sale
Deed, the executant of the GPA in favour of Smt. Pyari
@Jaswant Kaur was not alive. It is a settled law that GPA
until and unless is irrevocable will come to an end with
death of the executant. Hence, I do not find any infirmity
and illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, present
RSA No.45 of 2018 Page 4 of 5
appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Appeal
file be consigned to record room. TCR be sent back along
with copy of this order."
10. In view of the above, it is evident that there was no constraint upon
the appellant in filing her Written Statement within time and nothing
prevented her from leading evidence during trial of the suit. Interestingly,
no application was made before the First Appellate Court to lead any
evidence to bring on record such document, as is sought to be relied upon
now.
11. In the absence of any unavoidable intervening circumstance pre-
empting or constraining the appellant from pursuing her case before the
Trial Court, there would be no justification in granting the appellant yet
another opportunity at the second appellate stage. The rights of the
respondents adjudicated after long trial and upheld by the impugned orders
cannot be lightly trifled with.
12. No question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, for the
aforesaid reasons, it, alongwith pending applications, is dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MARCH 14, 2018
sb
