Ram Asra vs Paras Ram Gupta and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—On the death of the Plaintiff Paras Ram Gupta, does the right to sue survives to his legal representatives? Herein lies the controversy raised.

The relevant factual background being that on January 23, 1972, the petitioner Ram Asra, who is the owner of booth 164, Sector 35, Chandigarh executed a general power of attorney with regard to it in favour of the plaintiff Paras Ram Gupta. This was, however, later revoked by him by a deed of revocation registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Chandigarh on May 24, 1984 Registered notice to this effect was sent to the plaintiff and notice of this revocation of the power of attorney was also published in the Indian Express.

It was August 12, 1986 that the plaintiff Paras Ram Gupta filed the suit seaking declaration that the general power of attorney executed in his favour was still valid and enforceable being irrevocable as an interest had been created in his favour by virtue of an agreement to sell and he also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession and enjoyment, of the said booth The plea raised in this behalf being that on the basis of the said power of attorney, he had handed over possession of the booth to one Joginder Singh.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-Paras Ram Gupta died on March 30, 1989, An application was then filed by his widow, sons and the widow of his pre deceased son under Order 22, Rules 1 to 4 of the CPC for being impleaded as his Segal representatives in the suit, which was allowed by the trial court and this is what is now sought to be questioned in revision here.

It was the contention of Mr. M.L. Sarin, counsel for the petitioner that on the death of the plaintiff-Paras Ram Gupta, the right to sue came to an end as it was founded upon the power of attorney executed in his favour which could not enure beyond his life time Reference was here also made by him to the finding recorded in the impugned order to the effect that the right to sue as regards the power of attorney did not survive to the legal heirs of the plaintiff- Paras Ram Gupta, What, however, prevailed with the trial court and was also sought to, be supported by Mr. Hemat Kumar, counsel for the respondents, was that, the relief sought in the suit was not merely a declaration with regard to the power of attorney, but, also of an injunction regarding possession of the both in suit. This plea too cannot however, stand when regard is had to be the fact that the plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of the booth. On his own showing possession of the booth had been handed over to one Joginder Singh and this Joginder Singh is not a party to the suit. This being so, there can be no escape from the conclusion that with the death of the plaintiff Paras Ram Gupta no right to sue survives to his legal heirs. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is consequently hereby sot aside. This revision petition is thus accepted. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.