Case: D.D.A vs Gaurav Kukreja
Date of judgement: March 24, 2015
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3124 OF 2015
Bench: Hon’ble Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi
Appellant: D.D.A
Respondent: Gaurav Kukreja
Relevant Cases:
- Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656
- Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank
Facts:
1. Vendor by an agreement to sell dated, agreed to sell the suit property to vendee for a sale consideration of Rs.20, 50,000/-. Vendor, in respect of the same suit property, also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Lekh Raj Kukreja-husband of vendee.
2. Vendor refused to execute the sale deed, even after receiving the complete sale consideration. This led to the filing of civil suit for a decree of specific performance of the said agreement to sell. Though the agreement to sell was made in favour of vendee, the suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent (son of vendee) and Lekh Raj Kukreja against vendor.
3. Learned Single Judge while deciding the civil suit held the entire transaction to be valid and observed that Respondent and his father and mother were ready and willing to complete the sale transaction but vendor failed to perform his part of obligation.
4. Further the Respondent applied to DDA for the conversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold. However, the DDA refused the conversion on the ground that as per the scheme, he did not possess a good title. Respondent in front of the high court contended that DDA wrongfully denied his plea for conversion as he paid the amount of Rs.18, 55,347/- with DDA towards conversion charges.
5. Learned Single Judge observed the decision in favour of Respondent. The Appellant DDA approached to Supreme Court regarding this issue.
Issue involved:
- Whether the Respondent is entitled for the conversion of the said property?
Reasoning:
1. Clause 13 of the scheme states that, “The conversion shall also be allowed in the cases where lessee/sub-lessee/allottee has parted with the possession of the property provided that:
a) Application for conversion is made by a person holding power of attorney from lessee/sub-lessee/allottee to alienate (sell/transfer) the property.
b) Proof is given of the possession of the property in favour of the person in whose name conversion is being sought.
c) Where there is successive power of attorneys, conversion will be allowed after verifying the factum of possession provided that the linkage of original lessee/sub-lessee/allottee with the last power of attorney is established and attested copies of power of attorneys are submitted.”
2. Court held that, the Respondent does not satisfy the terms of Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme as he is neither a power of attorney holder nor a holder of sale deed in respect of the suit property.
3. In Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656 and Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank the court observed that, “a GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor creates any interest in an immovable property, dealing with transactions by way of GPA/WILL are not justified, unintended misleading the general public.”
4. Therefore Court states that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of GPA/WILL transfers do not convey title and do not amount to valid mode of transfer of immovable property.
Judgement:
In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed.
Conclusion:
A vendor in this case agreed to sale his property to Mrs. Raymen Kukreja (vendee). Her son, Gaurav Kukreja (Respondent) applied for the conversion of property from leasehold to freehold in DDA. His application was rejected by DDA, and then he approached to high court regarding this issue. The court allowed his appeal and states that DDA wrongfully denied his plea for conversion as he paid the amount of Rs.18, 55,347/- with DDA towards conversion charges.
Further the Supreme Court referring the precedents allowed the appeal of DDA on the ground that the respondent does not satisfy the terms of Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme as he is neither a power of attorney holder nor a holder of sale deed in respect of the suit property.
Drafted By: Param Mansinghka
Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
Published On: February 13, 2022 at 22:00 IST