http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. BHATORI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. RAM PIARI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   210        1996 SCALE  (5)752

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Heard counsel for the appellant.      Pursuant to notice issued on November 22, 1988, Mr. Uma Dutta had  appeared for  the  respondent.  Subsequently,  he reported on  January 6,  1995 that  he was instructed not to appear  in  the  matter.  He  sought  for  and  was  granted permission to  withdraw  from  the  case.  Thereafter,  none appeared  for   the  respondent.  Initially,  the  case  was adjourned   since   consequent   upon   reference   doubting correctness of  Mithilesh Kumar  & Anr. v. Prem Behari Khare [(1989) 2  SCC 95]  decision  by  a  three-Judge  Bench  was awaited. The  controversy is no longer res judicata. In view of the  judgment of three-Judge Bench in R. Rajagopala Reddy v. Padmini  Chandrashekharan [(1995)  2 SCC 630], wherein it was held  that the  Benami Transaction  Prohibition  Act  is prospective in  operation, the  question in  this  case  is: whether the  sale of the appellant’s land to the wife of the second respondent,  Ram Mehrar,  holder of power of attorney of the appellant is valid in law?      It is  seen  that  Ram  Mehrar  had  general  power  of attorney not only to engage a counsel and conduct litigation on behalf  of the appellant, but can also mortgage, alienate or transfer  possession of  the agricultural  land to anyone whosoever after obtaining the exemption from the appropriate authorities. It is seen that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the land was published in January  1979.  Notice,  thereafter,  was  given  to  the appellant on  March 28,  1979. When  the appellant  demanded from the  second respondent in August 1979 the return of her Power of  Attorney, he did not return it. On the other hand, he promised  that  he  would  not  act  detrimental  to  her interest. The  second respondet appears to have field a suit on August  23, 1979  in which  he impleaded the appellant as party-defendant. It  is the  case of  the appellant that the second respondent engaged two advocates, one Mr. Mitter Sain on behalf of himself and other Ram Kishan for the appellant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

The counsel  appearing for  her informed  her  had  produced damage to  the  appellant  depriving  her  of  the  valuable property  denuding   right,  title  and  interest  to  claim compensation  in  respect  of  her  lands  acquired  by  the Government. Having been defrauded, she is entitled to lay to suit for declaration of title and other reliefs in the suit. It would,  therefore, be a clear case of fraud played by the respondent upon  the  appellant.  The  fraud  unreveals  the contract and  it is  void. The  courts below  have committed grave error  by not  appreciating the  fraud played  by  the respondent in proper perspective.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  judgments and decrees  of   the  courts   below  are  set  aside.  In  the circumstances, the  suit is  decreed  with  exemplary  costs throughout quantified  at Rs. 10,000/- at each of the stages including in this Court.