SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. HOUSING BOARD HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to execute a conveyance deed in view of her assertion that she had become owner under the registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney and her continuous possession since 1994. The facts leading to the present writ petition are that on 24.12.1992 one Mr. R.K. Gupta (since deceased) was allotted a Middle Income Group (MIG) House No. 2327, Sector 3, Kurukshetra measuring 72.04 sq. yds. by the Housing Board Haryana. The total consideration of the house was Rs. 1,28,589/- and the allottee had paid a total amount of Rs. 19,067/- at the time of allotment. The balance was to be paid in installments for a period of 13 years. The conveyance deed was to be executed after the entire amount due was paid. Mr. R.K. Gupta agreed to sell his MIG house to one Mohan Lal on 25.01.1993. However, that Mohan Lal also expressed his inability to pay the balance consideration. A deal was said to be arrived at between Mr. Gupta (the original allottee), Mohan Lal (an Attorney) and the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner would pay an amount already paid by Mohan Lal to the allottee and she would continue to pay the installments of the said house. The petitioner paid approximately Rs. 40,000/- to Mohan Lal. The allottee cancelled the Power of Attorney given by him to Mohan Lal (a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-2 with the present writ petition) and executed fresh registered Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner. A Will was also said to be executed in favour of the petitioner. On payment of all the installments, the petitioner sought issuance of No Objection Certificate but since no action was taken, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for effecting transfer of the rights in her favour.

(2.) The original allottee Mr. R.K. Gupta died on 12.01.1999. The petitioner claimed that in terms of arrangement of transfer, through the General Power of Attorney, Will and handing over the possession, the petitioner is owner in terms of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act') and that death of Mr. R.K. Gupta has no effect on the validity of the General Power of Attorney. Reliance is placed upon Single Bench judgment of this court titled as Ramesh Mohan v. Raj Krishan,1984 86 PunLR 211 Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court titled as Harbans Singh v. Shanti Devi, 1977 2 ILR(Del) 649 and Single Bench judgments of Delhi High Court titled as Prem Raj v. Babu Ram, 1991 RLR 458 and titled as Hardip Kaur v. Kailash and another, 2012 193 DLT 168 Reliance is also placed upon Supreme Court judgment titled as Seth Loon Koran Sethiya v. Ivan E. John and others, 1969 AIR(SC) 73 where the interest created in an Agent was recognized as not revocable.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that no declaration can be given in the present writ petition so as to transfer the rights in the property in favour of the petitioner on the strength of General Power of Attorney. The principal who granted the Attorney had died, therefore, the Attorney no longer survives. The petitioner can claim rights under the attorney, if he is able to establish that an interest was created in his favour. The plain reading of the attorney does: not lead to such inference. It may be possible to return such finding on the basis of documents, which the petitioner may possess to assert that with or/and at the time of execution of power of attorney, an interest in the property was created.