Case Note & Summary
The case involves a regular first appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2012 in O.S.No.2405/2010 passed by the XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The trial court had decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring that the sale deed dated 17.2.2009 in respect of 'B' schedule property, executed by the first defendant as GPA holder of M/s Tex International in favour of the second defendant, was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, and also granted damages at Rs.50,000 per month. The plaintiff, Smt. Malini V. Rao, claimed to be the proprietress of M/s Tex International and alleged that the first defendant, Sri U. Vijaya Kumar, who held a General Power of Attorney from the firm, had no authority to sell the suit property. The defendants contended that the GPA conferred wide powers including the power to sell. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, held that a General Power of Attorney must be strictly construed and that the authority to sell immovable property must be expressly conferred. The court found that the GPA in question did not expressly authorize the sale of the suit property. Consequently, the sale deed was void and not binding on the plaintiff. The court also noted that the burden of proving the authority to sell lay on the defendants, which they failed to discharge. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's decree was upheld with modifications regarding damages.
Headnote
A) Power of Attorney - Construction of General Power of Attorney - Authority to Sell Immovable Property - A General Power of Attorney must be strictly construed; authority to sell immovable property must be expressly and specifically conferred, not inferred from general words. The burden of proving that the GPA holder had authority to execute the sale deed lies on the party asserting the validity of the sale. (Paras 10-15) B) Property Law - Sale Deed by GPA Holder - Validity - Where the GPA does not expressly authorize the sale of immovable property, the sale deed executed by the GPA holder is void and not binding on the principal. The plaintiff, as proprietress of the firm, is entitled to declaration that the sale deed is null and void. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - Appeal against decree for declaration, possession, damages, and permanent injunction - The appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and set aside findings if the trial court's conclusions are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale deed executed by the first defendant as GPA holder of the plaintiff's proprietorship concern was valid and binding on the plaintiff, and whether the trial court's decree declaring the sale deed null and void was correct.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 24.02.2012 in O.S.No.2405/2010 is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- General Power of Attorney must be strictly construed
- authority to sell immovable property must be expressly conferred
- burden of proof on party relying on GPA
- Section 96 CPC appeal against decree for declaration and possession
