Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • M.M. Kaushik for appellants R.D. Jain with S.K. Jain for respondents No. 1 to 7.
Judges
  • S.P. Srivastava
Acts
  • provisions contained in Article 23 of Schedule-I-A of the Indian Stamp Act,
  • VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred
  • M.P. Amendment Act No. 22 of 1990
  • Order XLI rule 27 of the Code
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • M.M. Kaushik for appellants R.D. Jain with S.K. Jain for respondents No. 1 to 7.
Judges
  • S.P. Srivastava
Acts
  • provisions contained in Article 23 of Schedule-I-A of the Indian Stamp Act,
  • VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred
  • M.P. Amendment Act No. 22 of 1990
  • Order XLI rule 27 of the Code
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Concise Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and a prohibitory injunction against the defendants in respect of agricultural holdings totalling 34 bighas 8 biswas, claiming to be owners in possession. The plaintiffs alleged that a general power of attorney dated 15.2.1996 had been executed in favour of defendant No. 4 (Preetamsingh) by the plaintiffs and Ramsingh (one of the signatories). Ramsingh died on 28.3.1997. The plaintiffs asked defendant No. 4 not to act on the power of attorney thereafter and cancelled it on 8.5.1997, communicating the cancellation to defendant No. 4. Despite cancellation, defendant No. 4 purportedly executed sale deeds on 4.6.1997 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 (his wife, daughter and son).

The trial Court, after examining evidence, concluded that defendant No. 4 had no authority to execute the sale deeds, that the general power of attorney had been cancelled and that the plaintiffs continued to be recorded in revenue records and to be in actual possession (having cultivated and harvested crops). The trial Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and from alienating the land or recording ownership in revenue records.

The defendants appealed seeking dismissal of the application for ad interim injunction. Along with the appeal, they filed: (a) an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (LA. No. 7729/98) to amend their objections, and (b) an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC (LA. No. 7728/98) to bring on record additional evidence — specifically, an agreement of sale dated 15.2.1996 executed by the plaintiffs and Ramsingh in favour of defendant No. 4.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the trial Court erred in granting an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and from alienating the land.
  2. Whether the defendants/appellants should be permitted to amend their objections under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and to bring on record additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC (specifically, the agreement of sale dated 15.2.1996).
  3. Whether the agreement of sale dated 15.2.1996 was admissible in evidence, having regard to stamp duty provisions (Article 23 of Schedule-I-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended for Madhya Pradesh) and the factual recitals concerning delivery of possession.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants / Defendants' Arguments

  • The transferees (defendants No. 1 to 3) asserted they were in possession of the land in dispute since 30.4.1997 (or 30.5.1997 as stated by defendant No. 4) and that defendant No. 4 had full authority under the general power of attorney to execute sale deeds.
  • Alongside the appeal, the defendants sought to amend their objections and to bring on record the agreement of sale (15.2.1996), relying on inadvertent failure by their counsel to raise those objections earlier; they sought admission of the agreement as additional evidence.

Plaintiffs / Respondents' Arguments

  • The plaintiffs claimed to be owners in possession of the agricultural holdings and contended that the general power of attorney had been cancelled on 8.5.1997 and that defendant No. 4 had been informed of the cancellation.
  • The plaintiffs asserted that the sale deeds dated 4.6.1997 executed by defendant No. 4 were legally ineffectual and did not affect their title, and that the defendants were threatening to interfere with their possession.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by reference to the record and the evidence placed before the trial Court and then reviewed the appellants' applications filed with the appeal.

  1. Findings of the trial Court accepted: The appellate court noted that the trial Court had concluded that:
    • Defendant No. 4 had no authority to execute the sale deeds;
    • The general power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 4 had been cancelled on 8.5.1997 and that information of cancellation had been duly communicated to him;
    • Revenue entries recorded the plaintiffs as owners in possession;
    • The plaintiffs were in actual possession and had cultivated and harvested crops (wheat and gram); and
    • The transferees (defendants No. 1 to 3) had failed to establish that they had entered into possession as claimed.
  2. Admissibility and stamp-duty consideration: The court examined the agreement of sale dated 15.2.1996 (the document the defendants sought to place on record) in light of Article 23 of Schedule-I-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the M.P. Amendment Act No. 22 of 1990 (effective 15.10.1990). The amendment and its explanation deem an agreement to sell immovable property to be a conveyance for stamp duty purposes where possession is transferred to the purchaser, and make the provisions of section 47-a applicable mutatis mutandis.
  3. Application of the statutory provision to the agreement: On reading the recital in the agreement, the court held the document to be deficiently stamped and therefore not admissible in evidence. The court further interpreted the agreement's recital regarding delivery of possession (clause 2) to mean that the possession given to defendant No. 4 was for the purpose of carrying out development work and was for and on behalf of the plaintiffs — i.e., the possession was not a transfer of beneficial ownership but a possession reserved to facilitate future sale by the plaintiffs.
  4. Procedural grounds for rejecting amendments and additional evidence: The court rejected the applications to amend objections and to admit the agreement as additional evidence because:
    • The only ground put forward for the amendments was inadvertence by the defendants' counsel;
    • The defendants failed to disclose the name of the counsel or file an affidavit from that counsel to substantiate that the lapse was his; and
    • No justifiable ground was made out to permit the proposed amendments or to admit the deficiently stamped document as evidence.
  5. Other factual and legal points noted: The court observed that no suit for specific performance of the agreement had been filed by defendant No. 4, and that even on the terms of the agreement the plaintiffs had reserved the right to cancel the agreement and reclaim the land on refund of the sum paid if sale deeds were not executed within a stipulated period.
  6. Conclusion on discretionary exercise: Based on the above analysis, the appellate court found no legal infirmity or justification to interfere with the trial Court's exercise of discretion in granting the ad interim injunction.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is dismissed. (The court expressly stated: "This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.")

Implications and immediate effects:

  • The trial Court's grant of an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs remains undisturbed by this appellate order.
  • The applications by the defendants/appellants to amend their objections under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and to bring on record the agreement of sale under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are rejected.
  • The agreement of sale dated 15.2.1996 was held to be deficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence for the purposes relied upon by the defendants.
  • No determination on the ultimate merits of title is made by this appellate Court; the observations are confined to the interlocutory stage and the trial Court will decide the merits after considering the full evidence led by the parties.

The opinion expressly limits its observations to the stage of proceedings and disclaims that its statements should be taken as reflections on the ultimate merits of the case to be decided by the trial Court.

Show full summary ...

    Gyan Singh Yadav And Others v. Kunwardevi And Others

    1. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the nature of the controversy raised these appeals which have been heard together are being disposed of by a common order.

    2. Heard the learned counsel representing the defendants/appellants.

    3. Shri R.D. Jain, learned counsel who has put in appearance representing the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 7 has also been heard.

    4. Perused the record.

    5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court granting an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute and further restraining them from alienating the same in any manner and getting their names recorded as owners in the revenue record, the defendants have now come up in appeal seeking redress praying for the dismissal of the application seeking the ad interim injunction.

    6. The plaintiffs had filed the suit claiming a declaration of their title in regard to the agricultural holdings in suit and for a decree of prohibitory injunction against the defendants. They claimed to be the owners in possession of the agricultural holdings in dispute having a total area of 34 bighas 8 biswas. It was alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 to 6 and Ramsingh, since deceased had executed a duly registered power of attorney dated 15.2.1996 in favour of the defendant No. 4 wherein he had been vested with the authority to carry out the various activities in connection with the land in dispute.

    7. Ramsingh one of the signatories to the general power of attorney died on 28.3.1997 where after the plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 had asked the defendant No. 4 not to act upon the general power of attorney. But the defendant No. 4 did not pay any heed to it. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 cancelled the general power of attorney executed in favour of the defendant No. 4 on 8.5.1997 and again informed the defendant No. 4 accordingly. In spite of the notice of the cancellation of the general power of attorney which was executed in favour of the defendant No. 4, the defendant No. 4 in order to grab the property executed sale deeds on 4.6.1997 in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 3. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale deeds dated 4.6.1997, were legally ineffectual and did not effect at all the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the land in dispute and in the facts and circumstances since the defendants were threatening to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs, hence the suit.

    8. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendants No. 1 to 3 asserting that the aforesaid transferees were in possession over the land in dispute since 30.4.1997. They claimed that the defendant No. 4 had full authority to execute the sale deeds on the strength of the general power of attorney executed in his favour.

    9. The defendant No. 4 had filed a separate objection. He supported the case of the transferees and asserted that they had been in possession over the land in dispute from 30.5.1997, on which date the sale deeds had been executed. It was, however, admitted that the sale deeds had been executed on the strength of the general power of attorney and he had no information about the cancellation of the same.

    10. It may be noticed that the transferees were the wife, daughter and son of the defendant No. 4.

    11. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence and materials brought on the record came to the conclusion that the defendant No. 4 had no authority to execute sale deeds. It was also found that the general power of attorney executed in favour of the defendant No. 4 had been cancelled on 8.5.1997, and the information in respect of the cancellation had been duly communicated to the defendant No. 4. It was further found that the revenue entries in respect of the land in dispute clearly indicated that the plaintiffs were continuing to be recorded as owners in possession thereof. It was further found that in fact the plaintiffs were continuing to be in actual possession of the land in dispute and the defendants had failed to establish that they had entered into possession as claimed.

    12. The trial Court believed the evidence led by the plaintiffs and held that the land in dispute had been cultivated by the plaintiffs and the crop of wheat and gram sown by them had been harvested by them. The transferees were found to have not acquired any right, title or interest on the strength of the sale deeds executed by the defendant No. 4. The finding on the questions relating to the prima facie case and the balance of convenience were also returned in favour of the plaintiffs.

    13. The learned counsel for the appellants has tried to assail the findings returned against the defendants/appellants by the trial Court.

    14. Along with the appeal, the defendants/appellants had filed an application being LA. No. 7729/98 under order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for amending their objections which had been filed in opposition to the application seeking the grant of the ad interim injunction. They had also filed an application being LA. No. 7728/98 under Order XLI rule 27 of the Code seeking to bring on record the additional evidence which consisted of an agreement of sale executed by the plaintiffs and Ramsingh in favour of the defendant No. 4 on 15.2.1996. This agreement of sale has been executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- only.

    15. The aforesaid agreement indicates that the plaintiffs including Ramsingh had agreed to transfer the land in dispute in favour of Preetamsingh, the defendant No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 43,00,000/-. There is a recital in the aforesaid agreement that the plaintiffs had put the defendant No. 4 in possession of the land in dispute who could carry out the activities relating to the development of the land and carving out the plots which could be sold by the plaintiffs. The aforesaid agreement of sale further recites that the defendant No. 4 had paid an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the plaintiffs. It was further provided that the sale deeds had to be executed within one year from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act or disposal of any other dispute. In case, however, the defendant No. 4 was unable to get the sale deeds executed in that event the plaintiffs will be entitled to the agreement cancelled on return of the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-.

    16. It may be noticed that the aforesaid agreement of sale had been executed on 15.2.1996.

    17. The provisions contained in Article 23 of Schedule-I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh was amended by the M.P. Amendment Act No. 22 of 1990 with effect from 15.10.1990. The explanation added clarified that for the purpose of Article 23, where in the case of agreement to sell immovable property, the possession of any immovable property is transferred to the purchaser before execution or after execution of such agreement without executing the conveyance in respect thereof then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be leviable accordingly. It was further provided that, the provisions of section 47-a shall apply mutatis mutandis to such agreement which is deemed to be a conveyance as aforesaid, as they apply to a conveyance under that section.

    18. In the aforesaid view of the matter, taking into consideration the recital as contained in the agreement in question which is sought to be relied upon, it was clearly deficiently stamped and was not admissible in evidence. The recital contained in the aforesaid agreement of sale in regard to the delivery of possession to the defendant No. 4 as provided under clause 2 thereof, however, clearly indicated that the possession which had been delivered to the defendant No. 4 was to enable him to carry out the development work reserving the right to execute the sale deed or any other agreement or to effect a transfer of the interest by the plaintiffs. The possession of the defendant No. 4 was obviously, therefore, for and on behalf of the plaintiffs in order to carry out the development work which could facilitate the transfer of the plots which were to be carved out.

    19. The applications seeking amendments of the objections and the application seeking to bring on record the additional evidence in respect of the proposed amendments do not deserve to be allowed especially when the only ground on which the amendments are sought is to the effect that although the defendants had handed over all the documents to their counsel yet on account of some inadvertence, he failed to raise the important objections. The defendants/appellants have tried to shift the responsibility on the counsel and want to make a capital out of it. However, neither the name of the counsel has been disclosed nor the affidavit of the said counsel has been filed which could in any manner indicate that the lapse was on his part. No justifiable ground has been made out for granting these applications which deserve to be and are hereby rejected.

    20. It may, however, be noticed that no suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale now sought to be relied upon by the defendants has been filed by the defendant No. 4 so far. The defendant No. 4 had executed the sale deeds subsequent to the cancellation of the general power of attorney issued in his favour by the plaintiffs. Even in the terms and conditions contained in the agreement of sale sought to be relied upon by the defendant No. 4 after the cancellation of the general power of attorney, he was left with no right, title or interest to execute any sale deed as the right in this regard had been reserved by the plaintiffs in their own favour.

    21. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record, the findings returned by the trial Court against the defendants/appellants do not appear to suffer from any such legal infirmity which may justify any interference in the discretion exercised by the trial Court while granting the ad interim injunction in question.

    22. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

    23. It may, however, be observed that the views expressed and the observations made hereinabove as well as in the impugned order will be taken as only with reference to the stage of the proceedings and will not in any manner imply or mean reflections or comments on the merits of the case which shall be decided by the trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties in the suit in support of their respective cases.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Gyan Singh Yadav And Others v. Kunwardevi And Others
    (Jan 25, 1999)