DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR Vs. RAJANI TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for eviction of the defendants/ appellants upon contention that they have no legal right to occupy the suit premises. The case of the plaintiff respondent in short is that she purchased the suit flat in a housing complex from one Nandalal Tantia by a registered deed of conveyance dated 28.2.1990. Earlier a suit for eviction was filed by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff against the mother of the defendants/ appellants as being a licensee of the said premises. In the said suit the plaintiff/ respondent was not allowed to be added as a party even upon acquisition of interest in the suit flat and as a result of which the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent served a notice to quit upon the defendants for vacating the suit premises and filed the present suit.

(2.) Defendant No. 2 alone contested the suit. The said defendant contended that Nandalal Tantia was not the owner of the suit property and he had no right title and interest therein and as such the plaintiff/respondent did not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit premises by virtue of her purchase of the same by a registered Deed of conveyance dated 28.2.1990. The said defendant further made out a case for acquisition of title by adverse possession upon contention that the said defendant has been occupying the suit premises along with his mother since 11th October, 1978 as of right and adversely against the rightful owner and sinee after the death of his mother in the year 1983 he is in possession of the same adversely against the interest of any other person.

(3.) It transpired from the materials-on-record that one Mr. indra Kumar Halani executed the said deed on behalf of Nandalal Tantia as his constituted Attorney and presented the same for registration. The deed in question was thus registered on 28.02.1990 and was marked as Exhibit-1. The said special power of Attorney as executed by Nandalal Tantia in favour of Mr. Indra Kumar Halani on 19.02.1990 was marked as Exhibit-10. As Indra Kumar Halani had presented the deed of conveyance (Exhibit-1) for registration, the Trial Court held that such registration was hit by the provisions of Section 33 (1)(a) of the Indian Registration Act as the power of Attorney in favour of Indra Kumar Halani was not executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub- Registrar within whose District or Sub-District said Nandalal Tantia resided. The Trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit as the plaintiff did not acquire any right title and interest by virtue of her purchase by the said deed of conveyance dated 28.02.1990 (Exhibit-1).