MAYA DEVI Vs. LALTA PRASAD
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
February 19,2014
MAYA DEVI
Appellant
VERSUS
LALTA PRASAD
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CHUNILGJ V MEHTA SONS LIMITED ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA INTERVENER VS. CENTURY SPINNING MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]FATEH CHAND VS. BALKISHAN DASS [REFERRED TO]
MAULA BUX VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMAN IRON FOUNDRY:AIR FOAM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMDEO CHAUDHARY VS. RISHIKESHPRASADJAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
SHREENATH VS. RAJESH [REFERRED TO]
TANZEEM E SUFIA VS. BIBI HALIMAN [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. SAW PIPES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES LID VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
B S N L VS. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
PHULCHAND EXPORTS LTD VS. OOO PATRIOT [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
LAXMI BEEN VS. VIVEK KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-10-5] [REFERRED TO]RAMLIANI VS. LALTHANZAMI [LAWS(GAU)-2022-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ AGGARWAL VS. MEHAR SINGH & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-537] [REFERRED TO]
EZRA SARGUNAM VS. D.JANARDHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
ARULMIGHU DHANDAYUTHAPANI THIRUKOIL PALANI VS. CHELLAPPAN (DIED) [LAWS(MAD)-2022-10-192] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN DASS VS. BRIGADIER YELLEPEDDY S RAO (RETIRED) [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
DRS PLASTCHEM PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
SUDESH RANI VS. SWETA RANI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-452] [REFERRED]
R.SELVARAJ (DIED) VS. AMUTHA [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
MURARI MIRCHANDANI VS. JATINDER SARDNA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-107] [REFERRED TO]
MAINA DEVI VS. RATI RAM & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-346] [REFERRED TO]
CHAUTHI RAM VS. RAM CHANDRA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-369] [REFERRED TO]
NATVARLAL ASHABHAI PATEL VS. DIPAKKUMAR NATVARLAL PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-341] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KAKKAR AND ORS. VS. ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-516] [REFERRED TO]
P.MUTHUPANDI VS. THIRUMALAI CHELLATHAI (DIED) [LAWS(MAD)-2023-9-167] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEED AHMED VS. KARNATAKA BANK LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2016-6-153] [REFERRED TO]
INDO FARM TRACTORS VS. RAJPURA COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY [LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-211] [REFERRED TO]
JOY KURIAKOSE VS. T C MANI [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-130] [REFERRED TO]
STAR CEMENT LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MEGH)-2022-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT @ ROHIN AND ORS VS. SURINDER KAUR [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
B. BOOMA DEVI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-681] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WAQAR & ANR VS. ABDUL GAFFAR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH GUPTA VS. HARI KISHAN MADAN & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND ALLIED RADIOGRAPHERS (I) PVT LTD VS. JAIHIND PROJECTS LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2015-8-131] [REFERRED TO]
BASU DEV VS. NARAD [LAWS(HPH)-2022-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR & ANR VS. HARKA BAHADUR GURUNG [LAWS(DLH)-2018-11-152] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT DEB VS. ANJALEE DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2019-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
B.RAGHUMARAN VS. PUSHPABAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHALAYA CEMENTS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MEGH)-2022-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
MAXWORTH ORCHARDS (INDIA) LTD VS. B. RAVI BABU [LAWS(MAD)-2023-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR MANDIR COMMITTEE VS. SHRI KRISHNA BAHADUR CHETTRI [LAWS(SIK)-2016-7-4] [REFERRED]
MAHARANA DINKAR VS. SABITA DEVI [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
HARIVALLABH S/O LATE KEDAR LAL VS. MAHADEV PRASAD GUPTA S/O LATE DEVILAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-198] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR MUTREJA VS. GNCTD [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
VATEENA BEGUM VS. SHAMIM ZAFAR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-79] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK J. VS. VANITHA K. BHAT AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-282] [REFERRED TO]
T.R. MEERA W/O M. KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. MARE GOWDA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-2-113] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEPANI NIKETAN EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. N. NANJAPPA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-213] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. M P MADAN [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-620] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CLINIRX RESEARCH PRIVATE VS. BILCARE LIMITED, THR.ITS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
DEVINDER SINGH VS. FATEH JUNG SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-97] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI SHARMA VS. HANS RAJ GERA [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
T. SHEEJA VS. C.P. BALAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2018-9-254] [REFERRED TO]
M/S G.K.PATEL & A M P COMPANY VS. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2018-5-180] [REFERRED TO]
SATHISH KAMATH AND ORS. VS. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant herein filed an Objection Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, when the decree obtained by the respondent in Civil Suit No.407 of 2007 was sought to be executed. Suit was filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest, which was sought to be realized, on the property covered by an agreement for sale dated 3.11.2003 between the judgment debtor and decree holder. The appellant claimed that she became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.5.2006 and that she has been in actual physical possession of the suit property. The Petition was contested by the decree holder/respondent stating that the applicant/objector had no legal right, title or interest and that the execution of the General Power of Attorney and its registration would not confer any ownership right in favour of the appellant/objector. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Through Director v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2009 7 SCC 363. The Executing Court vide its order dated 23.7.2010 dismissed the Objection Petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Execution First Appeal No.23 of 2010 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The High Court also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited and dismissed the appeal holding that the documents relied upon by the appellant would not confer ownership or possession over the property in her favour. The High Court also vide its order dated 24.1.2011 upheld the order of the Executing Court. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
(3.)Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the ratio laid down by this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited was wrongly applied by the Executing Court as well as the High Court. Learned counsel submitted that in the final judgment which is Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2012 1 SCC 656, this Court has clarified the position that the judgment would not affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions and that the judgment would operate only prospectively. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged agreement executed between the respondent and one Prem Chand Verma on 3.11.2003 was a collusive one, subsequently created, to get over the registered Power of Attorney executed on 3.6.1982 between the appellant and wife of Prem Chand Verma, viz. Nirmal Verma. Learned counsel also pointed out that Civil Suit No.407 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent herein against Prem Chand Verma based on the deed of agreement dated 3.11.2003 created for the said purpose. Referring to the above-mentioned judgment, learned counsel further pointed out that Prem Chand Verma did not contest the Suit and he was declared ex-parte and a decree was passed in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel pointed out that the decree was obtained by collusion and practicing fraud on the Court and the Executing Court has committed an error in rejecting the Objection filed by the appellant herein, so also by the High Court by not appreciating the facts in the correct perspective.
(2.)The appellant herein filed an Objection Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, when the decree obtained by the respondent in Civil Suit No.407 of 2007 was sought to be executed. Suit was filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest, which was sought to be realized, on the property covered by an agreement for sale dated 3.11.2003 between the judgment debtor and decree holder. The appellant claimed that she became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.5.2006 and that she has been in actual physical possession of the suit property. The Petition was contested by the decree holder/respondent stating that the applicant/objector had no legal right, title or interest and that the execution of the General Power of Attorney and its registration would not confer any ownership right in favour of the appellant/objector. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Through Director v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2009 7 SCC 363. The Executing Court vide its order dated 23.7.2010 dismissed the Objection Petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Execution First Appeal No.23 of 2010 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The High Court also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited and dismissed the appeal holding that the documents relied upon by the appellant would not confer ownership or possession over the property in her favour. The High Court also vide its order dated 24.1.2011 upheld the order of the Executing Court. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
(3.)Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the ratio laid down by this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited was wrongly applied by the Executing Court as well as the High Court. Learned counsel submitted that in the final judgment which is Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2012 1 SCC 656, this Court has clarified the position that the judgment would not affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions and that the judgment would operate only prospectively. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged agreement executed between the respondent and one Prem Chand Verma on 3.11.2003 was a collusive one, subsequently created, to get over the registered Power of Attorney executed on 3.6.1982 between the appellant and wife of Prem Chand Verma, viz. Nirmal Verma. Learned counsel also pointed out that Civil Suit No.407 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent herein against Prem Chand Verma based on the deed of agreement dated 3.11.2003 created for the said purpose. Referring to the above-mentioned judgment, learned counsel further pointed out that Prem Chand Verma did not contest the Suit and he was declared ex-parte and a decree was passed in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel pointed out that the decree was obtained by collusion and practicing fraud on the Court and the Executing Court has committed an error in rejecting the Objection filed by the appellant herein, so also by the High Court by not appreciating the facts in the correct perspective.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.