IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3760/2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3315/2022)

SANJIT JANA .. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

CHITTARANJAN SARKAR & ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for parties.

The respondent No. 1 as owner, gave a power of Attorney for his lands to respondent No. 2 who in pursuance to the same disposed of more than 4 acres 37 decimals of the land in favour of the mother of the Attorney Holder and about 32 decimals of land in favour of the appellant. The total land was 4.77 acres. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 inserted some clauses in the Power of Attorney which were not borne out earlier from the document and on that pretext sold the land. Respondent No. 1 also alleged that he had never received any consideration of money against the transfer of the

land.

The interim injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated by the Division Bench but only partly as it was found that the possession was with the appellant. Insofar as the claim to sell the property is concerned, liberty was granted to the appellant to move the trial Court. It is in pursuance thereto that the appellant filed an application to sell 9 satak of land to meet his necessary expenses including the education of the children and for his business purpose as he was going through difficult financial times.

We may note that the case of the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 is the land broker and had executed a valid registered Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No. 2, who in turn had sold the property to the appellant. The revocation of the Power of Attorney had taken place after the transaction was completed in favour of the appellant.

On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the suit is for cancellation of the deeds executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff and respondent No. 3. In the impugned order of the High Court which affirms the finding of the trial Court that such permission for sale should not be granted, it had been acknowledged as

2

a matter of fact by way of bank statements, money receipts and cheques bearing signatures of the appellant, that respondent No. 1 had received monies from the appellant.

The report we called from the trial Court also sends somewhat a hazy picture as to within how much time the trial can be completed.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, looking to the monies which have passed from the appellant to respondent No. 1 and the need of the appellant, we consider appropriate to permit the appellant to alienate a part of his land measuring 9 satak and to appropriate the consideration thereof, but subject to the final outcome in this suit.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

....................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

...................J. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

NEW DELHI, MAY 09, 2022. 3

ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3315/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-12-2021 in CO No. 568/2021 passed by the High Court At Calcutta)

SANJIT JANA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CHITTARANJAN SARKAR & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 09-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pijush K Roy, Adv. Ms. Kakali roy, Adv. Ms. Indrani Dey, Adv. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Mr. Narendra Prasad, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Saini, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Mehra, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

[ Signed order is placed on the file ]