1978 (11) TMI 158 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms broad authority of joint Power of Attorney for land sales, additional evidence admitted, appeal dismissed with costs.

The court affirmed the High Court's judgment, validating the joint Power of Attorney and confirming its broad authority to sell lands. Sales executed ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of Joint Power of Attorney2. Scope and Authority of Power of Attorney3. Validity of Sale Transactions4. Admission of Additional Evidence5. Plaintiff's Status as Benamidar6. Impact of Compromise with Certain DefendantsDetailed Analysis:1. Legality of Joint Power of Attorney:The appellant contended that it was impermissible for three individuals to jointly grant a Power of Attorney to a single agent. The court refuted this by stating, 'Co-principals may jointly appoint an agent to act for them and in such case become jointly liable to him and may jointly sue him.' The court found no violation of the Contract Act or general law of contract, thereby validating the joint Power of Attorney.2. Scope and Authority of Power of Attorney:The appellant argued that the Power of Attorney only allowed for the management of joint properties and not individual properties. The court examined the Power of Attorney, Ext. P-1, and the supplementary deed, Ext. P-2. It concluded that the language of Ext. P-1 conferred wide authority, including the power to 'purchase or sell lands and to execute the sale deeds and get registered under his signature.' The court emphasized that the Power of Attorney was executed in a context where the principals were contemplating migration to Pakistan and needed to manage their properties efficiently.3. Validity of Sale Transactions:The appellant claimed that the sales executed by the agent were invalid as they were allegedly negotiated by an outsider. The court noted that the agreement for sale was entered into by the plaintiff's father and that the agent merely executed the sale deed. The court found that the plaintiff had acquiesced in the sale by accepting the consideration and thus was estopped from challenging the validity of the sale. The principle under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was invoked, which protects the transferee if the transferor was an ostensible owner with the consent of the real owner.4. Admission of Additional Evidence:The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to admit additional evidence, specifically the registered sale deeds. The court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C., allows for additional evidence if it is required to pronounce judgment. The registered sale deeds were deemed essential for a fair judgment, and their admission was justified.5. Plaintiff's Status as Benamidar:The respondents argued that the plaintiff was a benamidar and thus not entitled to seek possession. The court examined the circumstances under which the land was granted and found no evidence of consideration flowing from the father to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not a benamidar, as the essential elements of a benami transaction were absent.6. Impact of Compromise with Certain Defendants:The appellant had compromised with some defendants and withdrawn the appeal against them. The respondents argued that this rendered the appeal against the remaining defendants infructuous. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the compromise did not affect the substantive issues regarding the scope of the Power of Attorney and the validity of the sales.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Power of Attorney was valid and conferred broad authority, including the power to sell lands. The sales executed under this authority were binding, and the plaintiff was not a benamidar. The admission of additional evidence by the High Court was justified, and the compromise with certain defendants did not invalidate the appeal against the others. The appeal was dismissed with costs.