RSA No. 996 of 1985(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 996 of 1985(O&M) Decided on : 08-09-2010 Gurdarshan Singh and another ....Appellants VERSUS Jagan Nath and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- None for the appellants Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court dated 4.3.1985. A suit for specific performance was filed by the present appellants seeking to enforce an agreement to sell dated 20.7.1978 purportedly executed by the general power of attorney namely Nand Lal acting on behalf of the original owner-Nobha Ram. The agreement contemplated sale of two sets of land encompassing the entire holding of the owner in favour of two sets of persons. Eventually two separate suits were filed by these two distinct proposed vendees. The instant suit is one of them. The respondents no. 1 and 2 in their respective written statements denied the execution of the agreement to sell and pleaded that they were not bound by acts of Nand Lal who was general power of RSA No. 996 of 1985(O&M) 2 attorney and was authorised to manage the affairs of the property and not to alienate the same. Defendant nos. 9 and 10 in their written statement admitted the execution of agreement and pleaded that they have also filed a separate suit regarding the agreement executed in their favour. The other sets of defendants were proceeded against ex parte while some of the defendants supported the case of the appellants. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1) whether Nand Lal defendant no.2 was duly appointed attorney of Nobha Ram deceased authorized to file deed dated 17.11.1976 to sell this property?OPP. 2) Whether Nobha Ram deceased executed agreement to sell dated 20.7.1978 with regarding to the land measuring 22 killas 6 kanals 17 marlas at the rate of Rs.5200/- ? OPP. 3) Whether Nand Lal received Rs.27,450/- as earnest money?OPP. 4) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement?OPP. 5) Whether the default had let with the defendants?OPP. 6) Whether the land in dispute and ancestral coparcenary and joint Hindu Family property of Nobha Ram deceased if so, whether he was not competent to enter into agreement?OPD. 7) Relief. The Trial Court decreed the suit in toto and directed the specific performance of the agreement in question which resulted in filing of appeal by the present respondents which was accepted and while doing RSA No. 996 of 1985(O&M) 3 so, learned First Appellate Court resorted to alternative relief visualized under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. This is the cause of grievance to the appellants who pleads specific performance of the agreement. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants and this Court has been left with no option but to proceed with the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that judgment of the learned First Appellate Court suffers from no infirmity. It has rightly appreciated the facts that Nand Lal general power of attorney was only authorised to manage the affairs of the property and even though there was stipulation authorising him to alienate the property, the same was subservient to the original clause of the management of property and since no fruitful benefit seemed to be evident from the sale of the entire property for a paltry sum, therefore, the Appellate Court was correct in resorting to provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act in decreeing the suit in the alternate terms. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I am in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is a settled principle of law that the contents of power of attorney from which authority to act on behalf of the executant emanates the intent of the executant has to be inferred from the words stated therein. The strict rule of construction is that such a content of the power of attorney should be a manifestation of the true intent of the executant which in the instant case is clear. Nand Lal was only authorised to manage the affairs of the property and the power to alienate was clearly fettered by the original RSA No. 996 of 1985(O&M) 4 clause of management of the plot and was entirely subservient to it. The facts reveal that the entire property was sold for a paltry sum of Rs.5200/- per acre. The Court is also required to see whether the discretion vested under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act has been exercised judicially or not. This is also being held to be a substantial question of law as per the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Rajeshwari vs. Puran Indoria 2005 (7) SCC 60. If the material on record is to be evaluated then it appears that the discretion has not been exercised unjustifiably. When the Court is convinced that an agreement to sell was executed by the general power of attorney holder who had authority to sell only if it was necessary for the management of the property which intent is absent from the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the discretion which has been exercised by the Appellate Court does not warrant any interference. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. September 08, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge