ASHA M JAIN Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who purchased property No. A-27/ C, DDA Hats Munirka, New Delhi, on a power of attorney basis is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.1990 dismissing the objection filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the attachment order dated 29.4.1989.

(2.) The appellant is stated to have purchased the aforesaid property in question by an agreement to sell dated 21.5.1984 for a consideration of Rs. 90.000/- stated to have been paid by cheque drawn on State Bank of India. The documents in respect of the property in question, apart from the agreement to sell dated 21.5.1984, are receipt dated 22.5.1984, affidavit dated 22.5.1984, a registered General Power of Attorney dated 22.5.1984, a special Power of Attorney dated 22.5.1984, another general Power of Attorney dated 22.5.1984 and a registered Will dated 21.5.1984. It is stated that this property was purchased on what is commonly called a power of attorney sale where the registered documents of sale is not executed but a set of documents consisting of agreement to sell. General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Will etc. are executed. In view of the fact that the property in question was a lease hold property and transfer would not be recognised by the lessor without consent and without payment of unearned increase, only a power of attorney sale took place. Reliance is also placed on behalf of the appellant on a notice published in the 'Statesman' of 30.7.1987 bringing to the notice of the public a resolution dated 22.7.1987 adopted by the Delhi Metropolitan Council for treating sale transactions effected through such power of attorney sale as valid sale, purchase or transfer of interest for all practicable purposes and for necessary amendments to be carried out in law for the said transactions completed prior to the date of resolution.

(3.) The property in question was purchased through the documents executed by one Shri N.K. Duggal, respondent No. 3, who was the allottee of the flat in question in pursuance to the conveyance deed registered on 23.8.1984. This is so set out in the agreement to sell dated 21.5.1984. It appears that around the same time or just before the transaction in question in respect of the aforesaid property, certain loan facilities were availed of from Canara Bank, Connaught Circus Branch, respondent No. 1 by respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Since the borrowers and the guarantor failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the Bank, a suit bearing No. 679/1986 was filed and was decreed on 7.11.1986 for a sum of Rs. 3,21,635.40 alongwith interest. The execution petition was filed almost two and a half years later was Execution Case No. 4/1989 and an order of attachment dated 29.4.1989 was issued in respect of the property in question as respondent No. 3 was the judgment debtor and registered owner of the property.