AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner Smt. Nibedita Pattanayak and respondent no.3 Jayanta Kumar Deb Biswas, being the owners of certain land, entered into a Development Agreement with respondent no.2 Smt. Mita Ghose and executed a Power of Attorney in her favour for consideration. Smt. Mita Ghose entered into an agreement with the complainant Smt. Swapna Sengupta, for sale of flat bearing no. 12 on the 3 rd floor of the proposed building to her for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. After completion of construction, the possession of the flat was handed over to the complainant. No Conveyance Deed however, was executed in her favour. The developer declined to execute the Conveyance Deed on the ground that Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in his favour had been revoked. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint impleading the owners as well as the developer as the OPs in the said complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the Power of Attorney having been revoked even before execution of the agreement in favour of the complainant, she was not obliged to join in the execution of the Conveyance Deed.
The District Forum vide its order dated 29.08.2014, directed all the OPs in the complaint i.e. the developer as well as the land owners to register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
It is not in dispute that a Power of Attorney in favour of the developer was executed by the petitioner and the other co-owner of the land in question. It is also not in dispute that the said Power of Attorney was executed for consideration. In view of the provisions contained in Section 202 of Contract Act, the Power of Attorney executed for consideration could not have been revoked. Moreover, no public notice of the alleged revocation was given by the petitioner despite the Power of Attorney executed by her being a registered document. Had a public notice been given, informing the public at large that the said Power of Attorney had been revoked, probably, the complainant would not have entered into the transaction with the developer. Therefore, from whatever angle I may look at it, there is no escape from the conclusion that the developer as well as the land owners must necessarily join to register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.