Navigating the Legal Landscape: India's Compliance with Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs)
- LawDocs Team
- 2024-02-26
The Complainant died and his son Hemant Dandona was presented in his place but he has no knowledge of business transactions and cheques as they were not given in his presence. In A.C Narainan vs. the State of Maharashtra, the court held that the power of attorney holder having no knowledge regarding transactions cannot be inspected as a witness. Thus, in this case, Hemant Dandona cannot prove the delivery of cheques made in the year 2012. Thus, he cannot be held liable for the liability of handing over the cheques in question.
The plaintiff purchased the property from his relative Rohit Rawat and all the power of attorney was transferred to him. It was clarified by him that the property was earlier 200 sq. yards but it was partially acquired by the Irrigation Department and the area of suit property became 162 sq. yards. The plaintiff Ghirau when visited his property on 8 April 2013, he saw the defendant B.L. Goel and his two sons were trying to break the lock of the room and when he confronted the defendant he was threatened by him and he got scared and left the place and went to the police and reported an FIR.
While the defendant denied such accusations and tried to claim the plaintiff’s property as his own. But the plaintiff’s claims and evidence were proved right and the defendant was found guilty of having no right over the plaintiff’s property. An order was passed in which the plaintiff was as the true and rightful owner of the property and a permanent injunction was passed where the defendant and his restrained from creating any 3rd party interest in plaintiff’s property and was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as per instructions to the plaintiff. The cost of the suit was also granted to the plaintiff as per rules [2].
The Supreme Court in this case pronounced that sale transactions/agreements made in the name of a general power of attorney will have no legal value, also an immovable property can only be sold in case of registered deeds. ‘SA, GPA, WILL Transfer’ is not a valid mode of immoveable property and doesn’t add up to transfer. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records and people who have entered into such transactions should be given sufficient time to regularize the transactions by obtaining deeds of conveyance.
These transactions cannot be considered as existing agreements of sale. This decision should be made with the applicable potential to avoid privatization. Such agreements entered before the order was passed would be considered valid agreements. The validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions will not be affected. Development agreements and powers of attorney are already being regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty but ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not expected to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions [3].
Drop your comment