P.L. DHINGRA Vs. H.S. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.95, passed by IXth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 94-B of 1995.

(2.) The appellant filed a suit for rendition of account against the respondent/defendant on the ground that the respondent was the agent of the appellant. He was appointed as an agent by Ex. P-2, dated 24.9.85. It is alleged in the plaint that by virtue of the power of attorney the respondent executed a sale-deed, Ex. P-3 in respect of a land belonging to the various shareholders of the society of which the appellant became member after the death of his wife on 23.11.83. The appellant has filed a copy of death certificate of his wife alongwith the plaint, as Ex. P-l. It appears from the plaint allegations that the respondent was the Secretary of Ranjhi Bazar Nirman Samiti, Jabalpur. It was housing co-operative society which has purchased shares from Khasra No. 40/22, village Karaundi, Jabalpur. The society has a number of share-holders and each share-holder was entitled to a share in the property purchased by the society.

(3.) It is not indispute that a share was purchasd in the name of Smt. Krishna Rani Dhingra but she died in the year 1983 as already stated above. Subsequently, when the society was dissolved and it was decided to sell the land purchased by the society in which each shareholder had a right, the appellant was asked to execute a power of attorney conferring the power on the respondent to sell the suit-property. It appears that it is the claim of the appellant that he gave the power of attorney to the respondent for sale of his share of the land belonging to the co-operative society as he himself claimed to be the heir of his wife after her death. Accordingly, a power of attorney was executed by him. The power of attorney was registered. By virtue of that power of attorney the sale-deed was executed by the respondent which is Ex. P-3 on record. The appellant claimed that since the sale-deed, Ex. P-3, showed that he was the owner of the land, the respondent was bound to repay him the amount received by him on account of the share of the appellant in the suit-property. It appears that in long and rambling plaint the appellant denied that he has transferred his share in the suit-property in favour of his sister's son named Bhupendra Kumar. It appears that this Court has already held by order dated 31.1.94 in Civil Revision No. 118/92 that Bhupendra Kumar, the person to whom the share in the suit-property is alleged to be sold is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. It is also not in dispute that the suit is for rendition of account regarding the money received by the respondent in resect of the share of the appellant in the suit-property. The appellant tentatively claimed that he was entitled to Rs. 20,000.00 and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum, for the price of his share in the suit-plot. He also claimed Rs. 5,000.00 and also interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum due to harassment caused to him by the respondent because he did not pay the amount in time. The claim was based on the fact that the respondent deliberately, with full knowledge that the wife of the appellant is no more, denied him to pay the amount stating that he would not pay the amount till the appellant obtains a succession certificate in respect of the share held by his wife. The appellant claimed that despite the fact that his other share-holders were paid their dues the respondent deliberately and with mala fide intention held back this amount.