Syed Shaik Shaikil Ahmmad Anantapur Dist v. A Lakshminarayana Anantapur Dist And ANR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.81 OF 2017 ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in O.S.No.46 of 2014 dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The Trial Court sustained the objection raised by the defendants for marking of General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement dated 31.05.2010 as exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff, took an objection and declined to mark the document, as it would not create any right and would not amount to transfer as it is not a recognized mode of valid transfer of immovable property. The Trial Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Gaurav Kukreja1 and judgment of this Court in Ummadisetty Ratnasagar v. State and ors2.

In Delhi Development Authority1 case, the Supreme Court held that only permissible mode of transfer of immovable property is vide a registered conveyance and General Power of Attorney transfer do not convey title and do not amount to transfer and cannot be recognized as a valid mode of transfer of immovable property. In Ummadisetty Ratnasagar2 case, this Court held that General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of sale is neither conveyance nor instrument as defined under Section 2(10) and Section 2(14) of Stamp Act, therefore, will not fall within the purview of 'Deed of Conveyance of Sale'. But, these two judgments are not relevant.

1 (2015) 14 SCC 254 2 2016 (2) ALD(Crl.) 135 (AP )

MSM,J CRP.No.81 of 2017 The only ground on which the Court can deny opportunity of marking a document is on the ground of inadmissibility or irrelevancy. Inadmissibility may be due to any other reason like insufficient stamped document or unregistered document. But, this would not arise in the present case. So far as, relevancy is concerned, the sale deed is in pursuance of the General Power of Attorney dated 31.05.2010. Therefore, the basis for execution of the sale deed is Registered Power of Attorney and whether it is cancelled or not, has to be decided after Trial by the Court, but not at this stage. However, the validity of enforceability of Power of Attorney can be considered at the end of Trial. Therefore, I find no bar to admit the document in evidence, either under Indian Stamp Act or Registration Act, or under any other law.

Therefore, the order in O.S.No.46 of 2014 dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, is hereby set-aside, directing the Trial Court to mark the General Power of Attorneycum-Sale Agreement dated 31.05.2010 as exhibit and the parties are at liberty to agitate about the genuineness, validity and enforceability of the Power of Attorney at any stage of the Trial. If, any, objection is raised about genuineness or enforceability or validity of the document, the Trial Court is at liberty to decide at the end of the Trial also.

With the above direction, the civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:18.07.2017 SP