Ramesh chand
Vs.
Suresh chand
09-04-2012
Facts
- Shri. Kundan Lal, is the father of the parties in the dispute, he owned a property and sold the same property to the respondent by means of the document being the agreement to sell, Power of attorney, affidavits, receipts and will in May, 1996.
- The appellant was residing as a licensee in the suit property and the same was terminated by making the appellant liable to have the possession of the suit property. The appellant has the possession of the original papers of the property which he refused to give or to part with, as therefore a mandatory injunction was also sought for returning the documents.
- The appellant contested the suit by stating that the father of the parties owned three properties namely, the suit property, property no. 290 and the last property adjoining property no. 290. It was also stated that during the life span of the father he partitioned the property and the suit property fell to the share of the appellant. The partition is to be reported in July 1973. The appellant also filed a counter claim for cancellation of the document executed in the favor of respondent in May 1996.
- The appellant further submitted that unless there is proper registered sale deed, title of an immoveable property does not pass and there is only agreement to sell, Power of attorney, will, affidavit and receipts but not the deed. And as the father is no more the power of attorney came to an end.
Held
Trial court
The trail court held that the father of the parties transferred the property in favor of the respondent and he paid Rs 1,40,000/- to his father. The father offered the sale to all his heirs, only the respondent paid the money and took the property as on 16-05-1996. The court further stated that the respondent validly proved that the right in the property was in his favor by the means of documents including the agreement to sell, affidavit, Power of Attorney, will and receipts as on 16-05- 1996.
High Court
The High Court through dismissing the appeal recorded that the findings and conclusions of the trail court are legal and preserve. Hence, the court will not interfere with the judgment delivered by Trail court.
Supreme Court
The Respondent would though not be the classic owner of the suit property as would an owner be under a duly registered sale deed, but surely he would have better entitlement of possession of the suit property than the appellant. The father had already died, and the respondent became the owner of the property by virtue of the registered will. A right to possession of an immoveable property arises not only from complete ownership right on the property but having a better right or title to the possession of the property status of person who is in actual possession thereof. It was clearly seen that respondent has better entitlement then the appellant and the appellant had already failed to prove that there was a partition alleged in 1973 and the three properties, he thereon mentioned owned by the father. As for the annulment of power of attorney, it was held that power of attorney given for consideration still remains even after the death of the executor because it carries a commercial transaction. In view of the above observations the Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.