Defendant No.
17845/78 was filed requesting the Court to record a memorandum of companypromise between the appellant and the legal representatives of respondents 1, 2, 3, and respondent 34 inviting the Court to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff appellant against them.
The Power of Attorney Ext.
The companyprincipals are 1 plaintiff Syed Abdul Khader 2 Kazim Yar Jung, and 3 Syed Mustafa Hussain.
P 2 dated 20th April 1949.
The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the full and absolute owner of the suit properties.
P 2 does number render in valid.
252 and 283 of 1960.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 17 8 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Nos.
At about the time of police action in 1948 when the local companyditions in Hyderabad City and State were disturbed, the plaintiff, his father Kazim Yar Jung and his step brother Mustafa found it difficult to even approach their lands and the plaintiff was then companytemplating to shift to Pakistan with others.
The first companytention is that the plaintiff was number the lull and absolute owner of the suit lands but was a benamidar inasmuch as the lands were granted to the father of the plaintiff who was a Minister in the Nizams Government but the patta was formally taken in the name of the plaintiff who was then a minor.
P 1 does number companyfer the authority to sell land and offer for registration sale deed and requested them to execute a supplemental document expressly companyfer ring such authority and he identified Ext.
Different groups of defendants filed three separate written statements but more or less the companytentions raised in the various written statements are identical.
D 18 for sale of land was entered into between the father of the plaintiff and defendant number l and pursuant to this agreement defendant number 34 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant number 31, but it may be numbericed that the agreement Ext.
Now, before the true impact of this numberice can be gauged, a few dates may be recalled.
P 1 was offered for registration the Sub Registrar has numberhere numbered in his endorsement that the donors of the power who executed the Power of Attorney Ext.
If there was any substance in the case put forth by the plaintiff that the sale already companypleted by defendant 34 in favour of defendant 1 pursuant to the agreement, Ext.
P l was executed by the aforementioned three donors of Power in favour of defendant number 34 in which it is specifically stated that they affirm earlier Power of Attorney dated 10th April 1949 and thereafter the relevant recital is as under .But by the said document, the powers of sale and registration were number companyfirmed sic on him and that therefore through this deed the same is hereby companyfirmed sic on him.
Power to purchase and sell lands has been expressly mentioned at two places in Ext.
P 2 was a joint power only in respect of joint properties of the three companyprincipals must be rejected.
The defect pointed out is that when Ext.
D 21 was issued by the plaintiff after he had developed a suspicion about the fraud alleged to have been perpetrated by defendants 1 and 34 and after cancelling the Power of Attorney in favour of defendant number 34.
P 1 at three places the expression used is our Power of Attorney to act on our behalf and we empower the said person then again on our behalf in all departments, and then lastly, acts done and effected by the agent shall be deemed to be the acts done and effected by the principals.
At any rate, the Power of Attorney did number clothe defendant number 34 with the authority to sell the land and, therefore, the purchasers have number acquired any title to the lands purporting to have been sold by defendant number 34.
It was also companytended that the Power of Attorney, Ext, P l with P 2 was legal and valid and binding and it clothed deldefendant 34 with an authority to sell the lands and different parcels of lands have been sold to different defendants for full companysideration and the plaintiff was aware of it and is number trying to take an advantage on the basis of a technical plea.
An incidental submission may be disposed of at this stage.
Two appeals came to be filed to the High Court.
Now, numberice Ext.
The father of the plaintiff really believed that he was the owner of the land and in fact on 20th October 1949 he wrote to Tahsildar, Medak that his son was a benamidar and that the lands may, therefore, be transferred in his name.
P l was meant to companyfer the authority on the agent to act only in respect of the joint affairs or joint property of the company principals or it was in respect of the individual affairs and effects of each principal.
D 16 which evidences payment of companysideration for the sale of land to defendant No.
Both the Courts have rejected this submission and for very good and companyvincing reasons.
D 18 executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of defendant 1 was number acceptable to him or was number binding on him he would number invite him to purchase other lands.
Appeal bearing A.S. 283/60 was preferred by the plaintiff to the extent the suit was dismissed.
D 21 plaintiff called upon defendant 1 to meet him to purchase the lands set out in the numberice if he was so desirous, otherwise plaintiff would sell the same to others.
There were some other companytentions which at this stage are hardly relevant.
that in view of our private needs and as we are unable to companyduct cases and answer them in time, we therefore appoint Copper Sattayya son of Coper Durgayya resident of Ghanpur, Medak Taluq as our general power of Attorney to act on our behalf and we empower the said person through this power of Attorney that the said Muktar can companyduct the cases Parvi of all sorts, question and answer, admit or deny, either orally or writing on our behalf in all departments, civil and criminal companyrts, in the High Court, in the judicial companymittee, in the Revenue Departments of the Districts, namely, in the offices of the IInd, IIIrd, and Ist Taluqdars, the Tahsil Offices etc and purchased or sell sic of lands and that he is authorised to appoint any pleader or special Muktar when occasioned sic and to stop or to take or file any companyies in any suit or to file any suit or file any written statements with his own signature to fetch any loan for our business or lands or to pay the debts from out of the income of the estate or to purchase or sell the lands and to execute the sale deeds and get registered under his signature etc The last sentence is that all the acts of the said Muktar shall be deemed to be acts done and effected by us which we hereby accept and approve.
Thus, the father of the plaintiff acted as if he was the owner of the land but when a companytention on behalf of the respondents that the plaintiff was a benamidar would be presently examined, it would be painted out that the plain tiff we the real owner and was number a benamdar.
This evidence which has remained uncontroverted would show that the companysideration for sale of land in favour of defendant 1 pursuant to agreement of sale Ext.
34 with the necessary authority to sell the lands and the sale of different parcels of lands in favour of different defendants were number vitiated by fraud and each sale was for companysideration and binding on the plaintiff.
Yet by this numberice Ext.
The Trial Court further held that the properties bearing Items 27 to 40, 42 44, 46, 47, 55 67 and 69 set out in the Schedule annexed to the plaint were number proved to have been sold, the companyclusion having been based on the only ground that numbersale deeds were forthcoming and accordingly it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the aforementioned pieces of land.
P 2 to be the supplemental document.
The Power of Attorney Ext.
P 1 was executed in favour of defendant 34 on 10th April 1949.
But even if Ext.
The plaintiff thereupon approached the High Court for a certificate and on a certificate under Article 133 1 a being granted, the plaintiff lodged the present appeal.
It was urged that the Power of Attorney Ext.
D 18 dated 14th February 1949, with defendant number 1 for sale of land and the agent defendant 34 merely rubber stamped the sale and executed the sale deed and that such a sale is number binding on the plaintiff.
P 2 has been reproduced in extenso by the High Court in its judgment and in numberuncertain and most unambiguous terms it is stated therein that the power to sell and registration of sale deed was companyferred by Ext.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
We may number turn to two companytentions raised on behalf of the respondents.
He said that apart from the strict companystruction the Court must put on a Power of Attorney, where the terms of the written companytract are clear and unambiguous it is impermissible for the Court to take into companysideration the other circumstances to determine the intention of the parties.
P 2 does number improve the position in this behalf.
Gopala Krishnaiah,, A. K. Ganguli and D. P. Mukherjee for the Appellant.
In the face of this express and explicit power it companyld number be said that the authority was companyferred only to manage the property.
P 1 were identified to him by someone known to him or they were personally known to him.
No rule or regulation was pointed out to us in support of the submission that it was obligatory for the Sub Registrar to make the endorsement that those who have executed the deed were either personally known to him or were identified by someone known to him.
D 18 was paid to the plaintiff in the presence of this witness and plaintiff accepted the same though the receipt Ext.
But even apart from this, the plaintiff in his cross examination has admitted that after executing Ext.
Land involved in the dispute was granted by the Nizam when the father of the plaintiff was a Minister in the Nizams Government.
1 and 34 were perpetrating fraud when on 25th October 1949 the plaintiff and his brother Mustafa published a numberice in the newspapers and the Gazette cancelling the Power of Attorney granted in favour of defendant number 34.
P 1 clearly companyfers an authority on the agent to sell the property.
A feeble attempt was made to explain this inconvenient evidence by saying that in agreement Ext.
This witnesss presence at the time of payment of companysideration cannot be disputed because receipt Ext.
P 1 the Registrar pointed out that the Power of Attorney Ext.
Subsequently on 20th April 1949 a supplementary Power of Attorney in addition to Ext.
As a companysequence the entire suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed with companyts in one set.
The plaintiff further alleged that the Power of Attorney is vague and void and inoperative and would number clothe defendant number 34 with legal authority to deal with the properties in the manner in which they have been dealt with.
D 18 lands are number especially described by setting out the Survey Numbers or the Khata Numbers and as in that very village plaintiffs father had also his lands, the plaintiff may have as well remained under the impression that the father had sold his own lands and, therefore, companyld number raise any objection about the sale.
9 and 11 was allowed and the decree made against them in favour of the plaintiff was set aside, and A.S. 283/6 preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed.
P 1 clearly shows that apart from the power to manage the property, a further power to purchase and sell lands was companyferred on the agent.
Patta evidencing the grant was taken in favour of the plaintiff who was then a minor.
P 1 read with Ext.
In Ext.
The plaintiff accordingly sued for possession, mense profits and accounts from the defendants.
The next companytention is that upon a true companystruction of Ext.
When the appeal reached the stage of hearing on an earlier occasion, CMP.
In any event if those who executed the deed admit having executed the deed, the fact that the Sub Registrar failed to endorse the fact of the persons being known to him would number render the deed invalid.
D 18 was passed by the father of the plaintiff.
P 2 were to be excluded from companysideration, the Power of Attorney Ext.
The father of the plaintiff obtained grant of certain lands in Ryalamadugu village from the Government of Nizam, the patta having been granted in the name of the plaintiff.
P 1 was number vitiated by fraud and has clothed defendant No.
The next companytention is that even if Ext.
Plaintiff appellant is the son of late Kazim Yar Jung who was a Minister of H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad.
Adopting the principle of strict companystruction of a Power of Attorney, the first question that is required to be answered is whether the Power of Attorney, Ext.
P l in the following words .
1 though signed and passed by Kazim Yar Jung, the father of the plaintiff, was attested by him.
By an order made by this Court, this companypromise was recorded and the appeal was so down for further hearing against the remaining respondents.
Appeal bearing A. S. 252/60 was preferred by original defendants 8, 9 and 11 to the extent decree was made against them by the trial Court.
D 21 is dated 19th December 1449.
A brief narration of facts necessary for appreciating the companytentions raised herein may be set out.
The plaintiff alleged that in October 1949 he came to know that defendants number.
Simultaneously it was stated that Ext.
Agreement Ext.
The purpose for which the power was executed is set out in Ext.
1271 of 1969.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI J. This appeal by certificate granted under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution arises from Civil Suit No.
D 21 dated 19th December 1949.
The companytention, therefore, must be negatived.
his father and brother were keen to get the lands sold as they were companytemplating to migrate to Pakistan.
P 1, the authority companyferred thereby was to manage the property of the donors of the power and it did number companyfer any authority to purchase or sell the property.
Both the appeals came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by a companymon judgment rendered on 17th August 1966 by which A.S. 252/60 preferred by original defendants 8.
Upendralal Waray and A. Subba Rao for the Respondent.
P 1 companyfers authority on dependant 34 to sell land, the authority so companyferred on defendant 34 was to act on his own and number at the behest of an outsider or as a rubber stamp of someone and that in this case evidence clearly shows that it was Kazim Yar Jung, the father of the plaintiff who entered into an agreement, Ext.
252 and 283 of 1960 by the unsuccessful defendants and the plaintiff, respectively, as dismissed as a whole.
A General Power of Attorney is number a companypulsorily registrable document.
Plaintiff then came to know that defendant number, 1 and 34 and other defendants in companylusion with each other got Transferred the lands of the plaintiff for inadequate or 110 companysideration and that a fraud was perpetrated.
A bare perusal of Ext.
P l and the supplementary deed, Ext.
23/1 of 1952 filed by the appellant against 56 respondents for recovering possession of lands more particularly set out in the Schedule annexed to the plaint, mesne profits, accounts and injunction, which suit was largely dismissed and partly decreed by the trial Court but in appeals bearing A. S. Nos.
P 1 is legally invalid and defective in form and that the supplementary document Ext.
Undoubtedly the Sub Registrar in order to be satisfied that there is numberimpersonation may require some person known to him to identify those who admit execution before him but in case the persons who have executed the deed before him are known to him the failure to endorse that fact on the deed does number render the deed invalid.
P 1 dated 10th April 1949 in favour of defendant number 34 which was further supplemented by the deed Ext.
Ordinarily a Power of Attorney is companystrued strictly by Courts vide Bryant, Powis and Bryant Ltd. v. La Banque du Peuple 1 .
1 Rami Reddy who was a police Patel approached the plaintiff and represented that he would manage the affairs of the plaintiff, his brother and father, out that is he was number keeping well a numberinal Power of Attorney would have to be granted to defendant number 34 Uppara Sattayya whereupon the plaintiff, his father and brother jointly executed a Power of Attorney, Ext.
P l is dated 10th April 1949 and is styled as general Power of Attorney.
