PARAS RAM GUPTA Vs. RAM ASREY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's appeal. One Ram Asrey, son of Aschraj Lal entered into an agreement for sale of Booth No. 164, Sector 35-C, chandigarh on 23-10-1972 in favour of Paras Ram Gupta. On the same day, ram Asrey executed a power of attorney in favour of Paras Ram Gupta. On 24-5-1984, Ram Asrey revoked the power of attorney executed in favour of paras Ram Gupta. Paras Ram Gupta thereupon filed a suit for declaration that the general power of attorney executed and registered by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 25-9-1972 is valid and enforceable. It was also prayed that the decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of Booth No. 164 be also passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant. While the suit was pending, Paras Ram Gupta died on 30-4-1989. The heirs of Paras ram Gupta filed an application under Order 22 Rule 1-4 for their substitution in place of the deceased plaintiff Paras Ram Gupta. The trial court allowed the application for substitution. The defendant-respondent thereafter preferred a revision under Section 115 CPC. The High Court was of the view that since the power-of-attorney holder has died, the right to sue does not survive to the legal representatives of the deceased power-of-attorney holder. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the order passed by the trial court was set aside. It is against the said judgment, the legal representatives of Paras Ram Gupta are in appeal before us.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that once it is accepted that Ram Asrey entered into an agreement for sale in favour of Paras ram Gupta and Paras Ram Gupta had died during the pendency of the suit, the legal representatives of deceased Paras Ram Gupta were entitled to seek injunction in regard to their possession by virtue of the agreement for sale. Without going into the question whether the right to sue survives to heirs on the death of the power-of-attorney holder, we hold that the legal representatives of Paras Ram Gupta were entitled to be substituted on the strength of the agreement for sale entered into in favour of Paras Ram Gupta. Since right to sue survives to heirs and legal representatives of the deceased para Ram Gupta, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.