Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 188 (UTT)

SAMAI SINGH v. HUKAM SINGH CHAUHAN

2007-04-17

RAJESH TANDON

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri S.K. Jain counsel for the appellant and Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D. Barthwal counsel for the respondents. 2. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1998 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 3. Briefly stated the plaintiff appellants have filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Haridwar for mandatory injuction for rendition of accounts stating therein that admittedly he has executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant. Paragraphs 2 and 8 of the suit are quoted below: 2- ;g fd oknhx.k us izfroknh dks }kjk eq[R;kjukek vke fnukad 18-1-84 eqlnnkdk fnukad 7-5-84 ;g vf/kdkj fn;s Fks fd izfroknh dh vksj ls fuEufyf[kr Hkwfe dh ns[kHkky o izcUèk djs mldks foØ; djus dk lkSnk djs c;kuk ;k #i;k olwy djs izfrKk fy[ks o rdehy djds jftLVªh;k¡ djds foØ;i=ksa dks vius gLrk{kjksa ls fy[k o izekf.kr djds o rdehy djds n¶rj jftLVªh etkt esa is”k djds mudh jftLVªh;k¡ djkos #i;k olwy djs dCtk nsos nkf[ky [kjhnkjksa ds uke rlnhd djos egdek bude VSDl esa gj izdkj dh dk;Zokgh djs bUde VSDl Dyh;jsUl lkfVZfQdsV izkIr djsa ;k vU; gj izdkj dh dk;Zokgh djsa ************** 8- ;g fd izfroknh us oknh dks dksbZ iSlk vnk ugha fd;k vkSj u izfroknh us vkt rd fnukad 18-1-1984 ls fnukad 22-11-85 rd dk dksbZ fglkc fdrkc gh le>k;kA 4. According to the plaintiffs they are Bhumidhar and are in possession over the land in dispute. The land is valued for Rs. 45,000/ - per bigha. Defendant is the Samadhi of plaintiff no. 1 and Mausa of plaintiffs no. 2 and 4. The plaintiffs have executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the defendant on 18.1.1984. By virtue of the power of attorney given to the defendant he had executed 19 sale deeds out of which one sale deed was executed by the defendant in favour of his wife. The plaintiffs cancelled the power of attorney on 25.11.1985. They filed suit No. 345 of 1988 for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to submit the account of sale of the land by the said 19 sale deeds. 5. Defendant has contested the suit and has filed the written statement. The plaintiffs cancelled the power of attorney on 25.11.1985. They filed suit No. 345 of 1988 for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to submit the account of sale of the land by the said 19 sale deeds. 5. Defendant has contested the suit and has filed the written statement. The defendant has alleged that the suit has not been valued properly. The sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 2 is valid and legal. The defendant has executed the sale deed by virtue of registered power of attorney given to him. The plaintiffs have acquired the land in dispute from the Government on free hold on payment of Rs. 2,416/ -. The land was not suitable for cultivation and the plaintiffs could hardly get Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per annum from that land. The registered power of attorney was executed on 18.1.1984. Thereafter the defendant no. 1 levelled the land and after cutting of 19 plots, he sold 18 plots to other persons while he sold the last one to his own wife. He has submitted that the total amount received from various sale deeds were paid to the plaintiffs and as such the suit of the plaintiff appellants is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. Plaintiffs have examined P.W.1 Balwan Singh, P.W.2 Mangal Singh and P.W.3 Rajeshwari and also filed documentary evidence. 7. The defendants have examined D.W.1 Suresh Kumar D.W.2 Hukam Singh, D.W.3 Dinesh Kumar and P.W.4 Bhagwan Kishor. They have also filed documentary evidence. 8. The trial Clourt has held that the plaintiffs have executed general power of attorney on 18.1.1984 in favour of the defendant which was effective till 25.11.1984 and during this period the defendant has worked as the agent of the plaintiffs. 9. The suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. No agreement was ever executed between the parties and the defendant has worked as agent of the plaintiffs. The trial court has held that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs after more than 4 years of the cause of action and as such the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation vide judgment and decree dated 27.8.1998. 10. The trial court has held that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs after more than 4 years of the cause of action and as such the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation vide judgment and decree dated 27.8.1998. 10. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.8.1998, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Haridwar being Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1998 which was dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2002 and judgment and decree passed by the trial court was affirmed. 11. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 12. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the suit is barred under Article 3 of the Limitation Act 1963. (2) Whether Article 4 of the Limitation Act is applicable in the present case? 13. It is not disputed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the power of attorney was executed in favour of the defendant on 18.1.1984 and the same was cancelled on 13.9.1985. The defendant Hukam Singh acted as the attorney or agent of the plaintiffs from 18.1.1984 to 13.9.1985. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for remediation of accounts with regards to the sale deeds after the termination of power of attorney on 13.9.1985 and work done by the defendant during the above period. Thus the suit comes within the purview of Article 3 of the Limitation Act. 14. Article 3 of the Limitation Act reads as under: Suit by a principal Three years When the account is, during against his agent the continuance of the for moveable property agency, demanded and refu- received by the sed or, where no such latter and not demand is made, when accounted for the agency terminates. So far as the applicability of Article 4 to the present case is concerned, Article 4 of the Limitation Act, reads as under: Other suits by Three years When the neglect or mis- Principles against conduct becomes known agents for misconduct to the plaintiff 15. So far as the applicability of Article 4 to the present case is concerned, Article 4 of the Limitation Act, reads as under: Other suits by Three years When the neglect or mis- Principles against conduct becomes known agents for misconduct to the plaintiff 15. The plaintiffs have sought the following relief in their plaint: 1- fMxzh fglkc Qgeh cgd oknhx.k o f[kykQ izfroknh bl etewu ls lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd fuEufyf[kr vkjkth ds lEcU/k esa fnukad 18-1-84 ls fnukad 13-9-85 rd tks dk;Z izfroknh us oknh dh vksj ls cgSfl;r eq[rkjsvke fd;k gS mlds lEcU/k esa vkenuh o [kpZ dk fglkc fdrkc izfroknh ls fy;s tkdj tks /kujkf”k izfroknh ds ftEes 60]000@& #i;s ;k blls vf/kd tks Hkh okftc fudys oknhx.k dks izfroknh ls fnykbZ tkosA 16. A perusal of the above relief sought shows that the plaintiffs demanded remediation of accounts with regard to the acts done by the defendants as attorney of the plaintiffs from 18.1.1984 to 13.9.1985 since the suit has been filed after the termination of power of attorney on 13.9.1985 and there is no allegation of neglect or misconduct thus Article 4 of the Limitation Act does not attract the present case. Claim of the appellants is covered by Article 3 of the Limitation Act. Thus the limitation for filing suit starts from 13.9.1985 and three years period was available up to 12.9.1988. The suit was filed on 22.12.1988 and thus the suit has been rightly held to be barred by limitation. Even taking into consideration Article 4 of the Limitation Act, the suit having been filed on 22.12.1988 and the accounting has been claimed from 18.1.1984 to 13.9.1985, having been filed after a period of three years even from January 1984 to 13.9.1985 and the same is time barred. 17. In view of the above both the substantial questions of law in the appeal are decided against the plaintiff/appellants. 18. Consequently the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 19. No order as to costs.