ALLIED LAWS

Lawrence
Ranchhodbhai Christian vs. Gujarat Christian Service Society, AIR 2019, Gujarat
161

The
suit was preferred by the plaintiff. The suit premises were owned by the
defendant institution and the plaintiff was living in the premises since
childhood because he had been adopted by the defendant as an orphan. Since the
acceptance of the plaintiff by the defendants, the physical possession of the
suit premises was handed over to him within the knowledge of the defendant and
trustees of the defendant. Nobody had made any disturbance in the possession of
the plaintiff since the last 25 years or more. It was clarified that he was not
a tenant of the suit premises.

But the plaintiff claimed
that he was in vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises since the
last 25 years and by way of adverse possession he was the owner of the said
premises.

The Court observed that
admittedly the plaintiff was an orphan and since his childhood was permitted by
the defendant institution to live in the suit premises. He cannot create any
dispute by claiming any ownership of the said premises as he has not acquired
any title. Long possession even of many years or decades could not acquire
(bestow) any rights or interest in the suit premises by the plaintiff. An
orphan can never acquire any interest in the property irrespective of his long
possession. Such possession cannot be protected by a court of law. Such
protection can only be granted or extended to a person who has a valid,
subsisting rent agreement, a lease agreement or a license agreement in his
favour. The plaintiff has acquired no right or interest whatsoever in the suit
property irrespective of his long stay and possession.

It was held that the
appellant shall hand over the vacant possession and mesne profit of the
suit premises to the defendant who is admittedly the owner of the property.

12. 
General power of attorney holder (GPA) – When no legal practitioner
appears for the principal and the GPA holder undertakes not only the signing of
pleadings but also the job of a legal practitioner, he must necessarily file
the affidavit of the principal authorising him to do so [Civil Procedure Code,
1908; O. 3, R. 2; Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and circular orders,
R. 32]

Ruhina
Khan and Ors. vs. Abdur Rahman Khan and Ors. AIR 2019, Hyderabad 117

The issue was regarding the
nature of the procedure prescribed by Rule 32 which dealt with an agent other
than an advocate appearing for a party and Rule 33 of the Civil Rules of
Practice which dealt only with signing or verification of proceedings by an
agent; and should it be construed to be merely directory or mandatory to the
extent of holding non-compliance therewith to be fatal?

It was
observed by the Court that Rule 32(1) was clear w.r.t. its application to a
situation where a party appears as an agent other than an advocate. Therefore,
the said agent would appear for the party in all respects and not merely for
the purpose of signing and verifying pleadings. When the party appears through
an agent other than an advocate, the agent is required, before he appears or
acts in the Court or makes an application thereto, to file the power of
attorney, or written authority, or a properly authenticated copy thereof along
with an affidavit that the said authority, whereby he is empowered to do so, is
still subsisting. In the event of an agent carrying on a trade or business on
behalf of a party without a written authority, an affidavit stating the
residence of his principal; the trade or business carried on by the agent on
his behalf; the connection of the same with the subject matter of the suit; and
that no other agent is authorised to make or do such appearance, application or
act; shall be filed. Rule 32(2) provides that the Judge may thereupon record in
writing that the agent is permitted to appear and act on behalf of the party
and unless and until the said permission is granted, no appearance, application
or act of the agent shall be recognised by the Court.

Rule 33 deals with an agent
signing and verifying on behalf of his principal and states that if any
proceeding, which under any provision of law or the Civil Rules of Practice, is
required to be signed or verified by a party but is signed or verified by the
agent, a written authority in this behalf signed by the party shall be filed in
Court, together with an affidavit verifying the signature of the party and
stating the reason for his inability to sign or verify the proceedings and
stating the means of knowledge of the facts set out in the proceedings of the
person signing or verifying the same and that such person is a recognised agent
of the party, as defined by Order 3 Rule 2 CPC, and is duly authorised and
competent to do so.

The Division Bench held
that where the GPA holder merely signs the pleadings in a case where the
principal is represented by a legal practitioner, it is sufficient if the Court
satisfies itself that he has the authority to sign such pleadings and the
filing of an affidavit is not mandatory. Any defect in this regard can also be
cured at a later stage by convincing the Court that such GPA holder was duly
authorised by the principal to represent him in the matter. However, in a case
where the GPA holder not only signs the pleadings but also adduces evidence and
advances arguments on behalf of the principal, he would necessarily have to
file an affidavit of the principal affirming that he authorised the GPA holder
to do so.

In
view of the above observations, the Court held that Rule 32 of the Civil Rules
of Practice is not mandatory seems to be an oversight as it is Rule 33 which
was held to be not mandatory, but no mention was made of the said Rule in the
concluding paragraph. Rule 32, on the other hand, was clearly held to be
mandatory as the Bench observed that when no legal practitioner appears for the
principal and the GPA holder undertakes not only the signing of pleadings but
also the job of a legal practitioner, he must necessarily file the affidavit of
the principal authorising him to do so.

13. Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) – Sale
by karta – Failure to prove legal necessity – Sale not binding on
members of joint family [Civil Procedure Code, 1908; O. 32, R. 1]

Sangnath
and Ors. vs. Babu and Ors., AIR 2019 (NOC) 685 (Bom.)

The appeal was filed by the
original defendants. The present respondents No. 1 and 2 were the original
plaintiffs. They had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. They
were minors at that time and therefore the suit was filed through their cousin
as next friend. The original defendant is the father of the plaintiffs.

It was contended that the
plaintiffs and the defendant are the members of a joint Hindu family. However,
after the wife expired, the father (defendant) did not pay attention to the
family. He got addicted to liquor and ganja and in order to fulfil his
vices, he started selling the joint Hindu family properties. It is stated that
there was absolutely no necessity for the defendant to sell the lands. The sale
transactions were not for legal necessity and they were not binding on the
share of the plaintiffs. The defendant filed a written statement and denied the
statement that the defendant was addicted to liquor and in order to satisfy his
vices, he had sold out the lands.

It was
argued that the land which was near a rivulet (nala) was barren and was
not giving any income to the father, therefore he sold it to defendant No. 2.
It was for the necessities of the family. So also a portion of the land was
sold since the father did not have bullocks and other agricultural implements to
cultivate it. Thus, according to defendants No. 2 to 4, the lands had been sold
for legal necessity and those transactions were binding on the plaintiffs.

Taking into consideration
the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the Civil Judge, Junior Division
held that the plaintiffs would get 2/3^rd share. The first appeal
before the Joint District Judge was dismissed.

In the 2^nd appeal
before the High Court, heavy reliance was placed on ratio expounding
that karta of the family can sell the property for legal necessity.

The
High Court held that casual statements made in the sale deed regarding sale of
the land for ‘necessity’ is not sufficient evidence for the simple reason that
the details of the necessity were not given in the recital of the sale deeds.
Further, there was also no need to challenge the sale deeds for the simple
reason that, though the sale deeds were executed by the defendant No. 1 without
any legal necessity, those sale deeds cannot be said to be binding on the share
of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

14. 
Secured creditors would have priority over all debts and government dues
[Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002; section 35]

Kulbir
Singh Dhaliwal vs. UT Chandigarh, AIR 2019 P&H 151

The earlier owner of the
property in question through its Directors had availed of a loan facility in
the amount of Rs. 13.15 crores from respondent No. 3 – Punjab National Bank – against
security by way of equitable mortgage. The respondent bank had got the details
of the secured asset registered. The loan account subsequently became irregular
as the borrowers could not maintain financial discipline and hence the same was
classified as an NPA (Non-Performing Asset). Thereafter, the respondent bank
initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI Act), which culminated in taking over of the possession of the
secured asset. A public auction was fixed at a reserve price of Rs. 11.50
crores vide a notice in which the petitioners emerged as the highest bidders.
After the deposit of the entire bid amount of Rs. 13.92 crores against the
reserve price of Rs. 11.50 crores, physical possession of the property was
handed over to the petitioners by respondent No. 3 (the bank) along with the
sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002. It may be emphasised here that there was no mention at all in the public
notice regarding any dues or encumbrances which may have stood against the said
property.

When the petitioners and
the authorised officer of the secured creditor approached respondent No. 2
(Sub-Registrar, UT) for registration of the sale certificate under the
Registration Act, 1908 (the 1908 Act), he refused to register the same holding
that the property in question already stood attached by the Government of
Maharashtra u/s 4 and 5(1) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the MPID Act). On refusal
of registration of the sale certificate, the petitioners impugned the order by
preferring an appeal u/s 72 of the 1908 Act before the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, respondent No. 1, who dismissed the same. It was in
this background that the instant writ petition came to be filed before the High
Court.

The question which arose
for consideration was whether the recovery of a secured debt would take
precedence over a crown debt; the issue is no longer res integra.

It was observed that a
reading of section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 which
starts with a non-obstante clause, makes it amply clear that the right
of a secured creditor to realise a secured debt shall have priority over all
debts and government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to
the Central Government, State Government or Local Authority.

Accordingly it was held
that it cannot be over-emphasised that the property in question was auctioned
by the respondent bank to recover its secured debts and the attachment order
issued by the Government of Maharashtra must yield to the rights of the
respondent bank. Therefore, the auction proceedings must be taken to their
logical end and no reason was seen as to why the registration of the sale
certificate be refused to the auction purchasers, i.e., the petitioners.