GHANSHYAM Vs. YOGENDER RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 03.8.2006 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 18.8.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Yogender Rathi seeking a decree of possession and manse profits had been decreed in his favor.

(2.) THIS is a second appeal. On behalf of the Appellant, it has been argued that the Court below had erred in decreeing the affronted suit on the purported documents of title set up by the plaintiff i.e. agreement to sell, registered general power of attorney, receipt dated 10.4.2002; the said documents could not be relied upon to set up title in the absence of a registered sale deed which the plaintiff did not have; the ownership of the plaintiff not having been proved in the suit property, decree could not have followed. The substantial questions of law have been formulated on page 5 of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance upon : AIR 1987 Delhi 36 Imtiaz Ali v. Nasim Ahmed; : AIR 2003 Delhi 120 G. Ram v. Delhi Development Authority ; : (2009) 7 SCC 363 Suraj Lamp & Industries (p) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. to support his submission. It is pointed out that a transfer of immovable property valued at more than Rs. 100/ - can be effected only through a registered sale deed. The agreement to sell, GPA, affidavit and receipt could not thus confer or transfer title. It is pointed out that in the judgment of the Apex Court report in Suraj Lamp Industries (supra), the Court had deprecated this practice of "power of attorney" sales.

(3.) THE trial court on the pleadings of the parties had framed four issues. This contention now raised was not raised before the trial judge. Even in the first appellate Court the grievance was that the documents had been got executed by him fraudulently and through mis -representation. Be that at it may, this Court shall deal with this submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.