Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANJEET KAUR & ANR versus RAJENDER SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MANJEET KAUR & Anr v. RAJENDER SINGH - RSA-3966-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 336 (23 December 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No. 3966 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: Dec. 15,2005

Manjeet Kaur and another v. Rajender Singh Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate

for the appellant.

....

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

The appellants/defendants have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehabad, dated 17.12.2002 as well as the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, dated 24.12.2003 by which it was held that Hibbanama (gift deed) in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 was null and void and illegal and further that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit land.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Rajender Singh was the owner in possession of the suit land measuring 18 kanals 14 marlas comprised in Khewat No.12 Khatuni No.14 situated in village Sehnal Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad. As the plaintiff was residing at Amritsar, and was not able to manage and look after his land, therefore, he appointed defendant No.1 as his General Power of Attorney on 13.7.1994.

However, subsequently, the plaintiff lost faith in defendant No.1 and, [ 2 ]

R.S.A. No. 3966 of 2005 (O&M)

therefore, he cancelled the Power of Attorney dated 13.7.1994 vide Cancellation Deed No.5007 dated 9.1.1998. However, defendant No.1 despite knowing the fact that the General Power of Attorney has been cancelled, alienated the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 i.e. the present appellant No.1, who is his wife, through a gift deed (Hibbanama). It was averred that the gift made by defendant No.1 in favour of his wife was wholly illegal and null and void and was a result of collusion between the defendants who are husband and wife. When the plaintiff came to know that the gift deed has been executed, he asked the defendants not to act upon the gift deed but the defendants did not agree and, hence, the present suit was filed.

The defendant No.2 in whose favour the gift deed was executed by defendant No.1 denied that she had hatched any conspiracy with her husband. It was averred that defendant No.1, who was the General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff, was competent and authorised to look after the suit property and also to alienate the same and that the gift deed has been made in accordance with the powers given to the General Power of Attorney.

Defendant No.1 denied that he was ever informed about the cancellation/revocation of the General Power of Attorney by the plaintiff.

The trial Court held that the General Power of Attorney issued in favour of defendant No.1 on 13.7.1994 was duly revoked and that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of his wife on 22.4.1998, well after the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney, was a nullity. Hence, it was held that defendant No.1 did not have any power to execute a gift deed in favour of his wife. The findings of the trial Court have been affirmed by [ 3 ]

R.S.A. No. 3966 of 2005 (O&M)

the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, vide his judgment dated 24.12.2003.

Counsel for the appellants has argued that the respondent/plaintiff had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 and had given him ample powers to sell, alienate or gift the property in question. It has further been argued that the General Power of Attorney was never revoked by the plaintiff and that no notice had been given tot defendant No.1 with regard to its cancellation or revocation.

On the basis of the above facts the substantial question of law that arises in the present case is:-

"Whether the gift deed dated 23.4.1998 with regard to the land in dispute is illegal and was executed by a duly constituted General Power of Attorney and Whether defendant No.1 was duly informed about the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney"?

A perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below shows that the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 on 13.7.1994 was cancelled vide cancellation deed No.

5007 dated 9.1.1998. Notice of the cancellation was also given to defendant No.1. Thus, after the General Power of Attorney stood cancelled the defendant No.1 could not execute a registered Hibbanama in favour of his wife-defendant No.2 on 23.4.1998 with regard to the suit property.

Moreover, it has come in evidence that defendant No.1, while appearing as DW1, has admitted that the plaintiff had met him two days prior to the execution of the gift deed in favour of defendant No.2. From this fact also it [ 4 ]

R.S.A. No. 3966 of 2005 (O&M)

is difficult to imagine that the plaintiff would not have disclosed that he had cancelled the General Power of Attorney in his favour.

Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that as the notice regarding cancellation has not been proved, therefore, defendant No.1 was well within his rights to execute the gift deed.

However, from the discussion above, it is clear that defendant No.1 knew about the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney.

Moreover, the appellants in collusion with each other have illegally appropriated the property belonging to the plaintiff in their own name.

In view of the above, it is held that once the General Power of Attorney stood revoked, defendant No.1 had no power to gift the land in question in favour of his wife. Both the Courts have rightly held that the gift by defendant No.1 in favour of his wife-defendant No.2 was null and void and illegal.

I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

15.12.2005 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )

rupi JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.