RSA No. 678 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 678 of 2009 Date of decision: March 14,2011 Dr. Subhash Chander Sharma ..Appellant Versus Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant ... L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral) By this common order, I am disposing of two appeals, i.e., RSA No. 678 of 2009- Dr. Subhash Chander Sharma Versus Smt. Gurmit Kaur and another and RSA No. 2116 of 2009- Dr. Subhash Chander Sharma Versus Smt. Gurmit Kaur. These appeals have arisen out of two suits. RSA No.678 of 2009 has arisen out of suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff Gurmit Kaur against defendant No.1-appellant and defendant-respondent No.2 Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, whereas RSA No.2116 of 2009 has arisen out of suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant-Dr. Subhash Chander Sharma against defendant- respondent Gurmit Kaur. Plot No. 1004, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh, which is the bone of contention in both the suits, was allotted to plaintiff by the Punjab Engineering College Teachers Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Chandigarh (in short,”the Society”) on lease hold basis for 99 years vide allotment letter dated 16.9.1985. Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘vendor’ ) agreed to sell the plot to respondent Gurmit Kaur( hereinafter referred to as the ‘vendee’ ) vide agreement dated 30.10.1985. The case of the vendee in the suit filed by her is that the vendor RSA No. 678 of 2009 2 executed irrevocable General and Special Powers of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff, in addition to affidavit and Will etc., giving all powers to the vendee and her husband Jaswant Singh. The vendee paid instalments to Chandigarh Administration for the plot in dispute and paid the entire due amount within the prescribed period. The vendee also raised construction on the said plot by spending ` 25 lacs. However, out of greed, the vendor cancelled the power of attorney and Will by way of deed dated 28.3.1989. The vendee in her suit sought declaration that she is owner of the suit property and cancellation deed dated 28.3.1989 is illegal, null and void and the plaintiff is entitled to get the plot transferred in her name. Injunction restraining the vendor from dispossessing the vendee from the suit property was also sought. Necessary ancillary relief was also sought by the vendee. On the other hand, the vendor in his suit alleged that the vendee did not pay the instalments as agreed and he got cancelled the powers of attorney executed in favour of vendee and her husband. The sale agreement dated 30.10.1985 was alleged to be null and void. The vendor also sought restoration of the suit plot. Both the parties took their respective stands in the written statements filed in each other's suit. The vendee also pleaded protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide separate judgments and decrees dated 23.7.2004 dismissed the vendor’s suit and decreed the vendee’s suit against the vendor but dismissed the vendee’s suit against the Estate Officer giving liberty to the vendee to file representation to the Estate Officer for sanction of site plan and regularization of water and sewerage connections as per rules. First appeals preferred by the vendor in both the suits have been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide separate judgments and decrees dated 20.11.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the vendor has filed the instant two second RSA No. 678 of 2009 3 appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case files. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant could not transfer the suit property for 15 years as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter and therefore, the sale agreement set up by the vendee was null and void. The contention cannot be accepted. The vendor with his eyes wide open, agreed to sell the suit plot vide agreement dated 30.10.1985 and also executed necessary other documents. Consequently, the aforesaid contention does not lie in the mouth of the appellant. In addition to it, the period of 15 years stipulated in the allotment letter dated 16.9.1985 expired before the filing of the suit by the vendee on 5.10.2000. Consequently, the said plea no longer remained available to the vendor. In so far as the suit filed by the vendor himself is concerned, the vendee being defendant in that suit is also entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in that suit. All the remaining instalments of the plot were also paid by the vendee. The possession also stood delivered to the vendee. Construction over the plot was also raised by the vendee. In view of all the circumstances, the suit of vendee has been rightly decreed and suit of the vendor has been rightly dismissed. The entire sale consideration stood paid by the vendee to the vendor. Consequently in view of Sections 202 and 204 of the Contract Act, powers of attorney could not be cancelled as interest in the suit property was created in favour of the vendee. This conclusion finds support from the judgments cited by the lower Appellate Court. In fact, the power of attorney along with written agreement was executed because at that time, the vendor had no right to sell the suit plot. However, after expiry of requisite period of 15 years, the said embargo also stands removed. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The suit of the vendee has been rightly decreed and the suit of the vendor has been rightly dismissed by the courts below. The judgments and RSA No. 678 of 2009 4 decrees of the courts below are not shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeals. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in these second appeals. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine. March 14,2011 (L.N.MITTAL) nk JUDGE