KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 dtd. 27/10/1995 (annexure P-2) and after some time, petitioner/plaintiffs cancelled the power of attorney dtd. 9/5/2003 by Registrar Office [cancelled power of attorney (annexure P-3)]. Even that respondents/defendants executed a sale deed in favour of Manoj Bhargava who is son of respondent No.1 and who is earlier power of attorney holder of plaintiffs dtd. 24/1/2012 (annexure P-4). Petitioners filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dtd. 24/1/2012. Respondents/defendants after appearing before the trial Court filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on 19/12/2022. After hearing counsel for the parties, trial Court passed the impugned award dtd. 7/7/2023 and directed the petitioners to deposit the ad valorem court fee according to the Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC.

(3.) Being aggrieved of impugned order dtd. 7/7/2023, petitioners filed this petition and submitted that respondent No.1/defendant executed a sale deed after cancellation of power of attorney, which shows her mala fide intention and committed forgery with the petitioners and the same is against the procedure of law. The principle of law is that anyone cannot sale any property if they have not any right in the property. Respondent No.1 has no right to sale the property after the cancellation of power of attorney dtd. 9/5/2003. So, sale deed does not create any right to the defendant No.2. It is settled principle of law that ad valorem court fee deposited on sale deed is voidable and plaintiffs are the party of sale deed, then he should pay the ad valorem court fee, but in the present case, sale deed is already void and defendant no.1 executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 after cancellation of her power of attorney holder on 9/5/2003. Hence, impugned order passed is against the law and is deserves to set aside.