DEEN DAYAL SHARMA Vs. ANJANA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are related as husband and wife and the respondent is the sister-in-law of the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the brother of the petitioner No.1.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as lawful Attorney by the respondent to act on her behalf in respect of a property situated at colony Mahendru Enclave, Block-C, J.T. Karnal Road, Area of village Malikpur Chhaoni, Delhi having 150 Sq yds out of Khasra No. 351 being holding No. C/75A by a General Power of Attorney duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Shillong on 21/5/2012. The General Power of Attorney was executed by the respondent for enabling the petitioner No.1 to deal with the developer/contractor and other statutory authority for construction of a building on the understanding that the developer would provide two flats of 3BHK at the first and fourth floor to the respondent and the developer would take second and third floor of the same standard. Upon completion of the construction of the building before the Diwali festival of 2013, the petitioner No.1 along with his family, with permission of the respondent, moved to the first floor of the building with a condition that they would vacate the same as and when required. The petitioner No.1 was also requested by the respondent to look for a suitable customer for sale of the fourth floor of the building. However, even after lapse of 4/5 years, the petitioner No.1 failed to arrange a suitable customer as requested and also refused to vacate the first floor of the building. The respondent being worried made further enquiry into the matter and came to know from her contact that the petitioner No.1 has no intention of selling the fourth floor of the building and vacating the portion occupied by him.

(3.) To settle the matter, a family meeting was held on 25/12/2020 at Delhi wherein the petitioner No.1 raised certain unfounded claim not acceptable to the respondent and also demanded Rs.1.00 crore from the respondent for vacating the first floor of the building. In the said meeting the petitioner No.1 produced certain documents which revealed that he has sold the first floor of the building to his wife, the petitioner No.2, by a sale agreement dtd. 13/9/2013 authenticated before a Notary Public at Delhi for a consideration of Rs.8.00 lakhs. The petitioner No.1 also executed an indemnity bond, a General Power of Attorney, a possession certificate/letter, a formal money receipt and a Special Power of Attorney, all dtd. 13/9/2013, in favour of the petitioner No.2. In addition, the petitioner No.1 also sworn an affidavit dtd. 13/9/2013 confirming the Special Power of Attorney and executed a Will dtd. 13/9/2013 in favour of the petitioner No.2. Being alarmed by the deceptive activities of the petitioner No.1, the respondent revoked the power of Attorney dtd. 21/5/2012 by executing a registered deed of revocation dtd. 26/2/2020 at Shillong and subsequently instituted the C.R. Case No.96(S) of 2021 under Ss. 120B, 420,406 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No.1 and 2, quashing of which is sought for in this present application.