Punjab and Haryana High Court – Regular Second Appeal Dismissed; Title Cannot Pass Through Agreement to Sell, GPA or Will
Case Name: Naginder Singh and another v. General Public and others
Citation: RSA No. 2324 of 2019
Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020
Bench: Justice Lisa Gill
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the regular second appeal, upholding concurrent findings of the courts below that the appellants had failed to prove valid title over the suit property. The Court reiterated that immovable property cannot be legally transferred or conveyed through agreements to sell, general or special powers of attorney, or wills, except to the limited extent recognized under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellants failed to establish that the disputed transactions were ever accepted by authorities, and no substantial question of law was found to arise.
Summary: The appellants-plaintiffs claimed ownership over House No. 1604, Phase IX, Mohali, originally allotted to Amar Singh Sawhney in 1987. They alleged successive transfers: Amar Singh Sawhney to Gureshwar Singh through an agreement to sell and affidavit (1989); Gureshwar Singh to Balraj Singh (plaintiffs’ father) through similar documents; and finally, a registered will by Balraj Singh (2000) in favour of the plaintiffs.
The trial court dismissed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, holding that no valid title had passed from the original allottee to the plaintiffs’ father, and the necessary parties (Amar Singh Sawhney and Gureshwar Singh) were not impleaded. The first appellate court upheld the decision.
In second appeal, the appellants argued that since the “General Public” had been impleaded and no one contested, the trial court should have directed impleadment of the prior transferees, and that ex parte proceedings against PUDA sufficed.
The High Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that plaintiffs must succeed on their own case and not on the weakness of the defence. Relying on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 4 RCR (Civil) 669, the Court held that property cannot be transferred by GPA, agreement to sell, or will. Since no sale deed existed and no authority had accepted the documents for mutation, the appellants’ claim failed.
Decision: The High Court upheld the concurrent judgments of the Civil Judge (24.12.2014) and Additional District Judge (22.05.2018), dismissed the RSA, and held that no substantial question of law arose. Delay of 234 days in filing the appeal was rendered academic as the matter was decided on merits.