The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Bhisham Mehta over the recovery of his sister-in-law Kusum Mehta’s share in the sale proceeds of jointly owned agricultural land. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a decree directing him to pay Rs. 1,01,78,074, along with interest.
Background of the Case
Kusum Mehta and three other women had jointly purchased 26 bighas of agricultural land in Village Paprawat, Najafgarh, through four registered sale deeds executed in 1985. Kusum held a one-fourth undivided share in the property.
In 2011, Bhisham Mehta sold the property for Rs. 6,95,11,500, acting as the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of Kusum and two other co-owners. Her one-fourth share came to Rs. 1,73,77,875. However, only Rs. 71,99,801 was transferred to her account.
After Kusum’s death in 2013, her daughters, Gita Vig, Hemlata Chanda and Dipti Dhingra, sought recovery of the remaining amount.
The trial court had decreed the suit for Rs. 1,01,78,074 with 8% annual interest. Mehta challenged that decision before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The High Court rejected the argument that the GPA had transferred ownership of Kusum’s share to Mehta. The Court explained that a GPA authorises a person to act on behalf of another but does not itself transfer ownership of immovable property.
“A General Power of Attorney is not an instrument of transfer of right, title or interest in an immovable property, but is a document of agency. Even an irrevocable Power of Attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the attorney.”
The Court also relied on the registered sale deed, which described Kusum as one of the four vendors and an absolute owner of the property. It held that Mehta could not subsequently take a position contrary to the recitals of the registered document executed by him.
The Court further rejected Mehta’s claim that the Rs. 72 lakh deposited into Kusum’s account was an interest-free friendly loan. It noted that identical amounts had been deposited into the accounts of two other co-owners and that there was no documentary evidence supporting the alleged loan.
Decision
The Court held that, having received the sale consideration as Kusum’s agent, Mehta was required under Section 218 of the Indian Contract Act to pay her share. It found the admissions on record sufficient for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
The Court also rejected the limitation objection, holding that the cause of action arose when Kusum came to know of the sale and the retention of the balance amount in April 2012.
The Delhi High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated February 7, 2020.
