SHABIR AHMAD BEIGH vs RAM PRAKASH MATTA AND OTHERS

1
P a g e |

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

Civil Rev. No. 14/2026
CM No. 3353/2026
CM No. 5420/2026
Reserved on: 01.09.2026

Pronounced on: 09.09.2026

Uploaded on: 09.09.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced - Full

Shabir Ahmad Beigh
S/O Ghulam Rasool Beigh,
R/O S.R.Gunj, Srinagar.


…Petitioner(s)

Through: Adv. Mohammad Ashraf Bhat.

Vs.

1. Ram Prakash Matta
S/O Late Harish Chand Matta
R/O S.R.Gunj, Srinagar
At present New Rohtak Road,
New Delhi-5.

…Respondent(s)


2. Bashir Ahmad Pootu (Dead)
S/O Ghulam Mohammad Pootu
R/O Banday Kocha Mahraj Gunj,
Srinagar.

Through Legal Heirs:


(i) Mst. Saleema (wife)

(ii) Nadeem Bashir Pootu (son)

(iii) Nadia Bashir (daughter)


…Proforma respondent(s)

Through: Adv. Soayib Qureshi, for R-1.
Adv. Athar Rashid, for R-2.


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT


1. The instant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the
order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the court of learned

2
P a g e |

City Judge Srinagar (hereinafter ‘trial court’ for short) in
a suit titled Ram Prakash Matta Vs. Shabir Ahmad &
Anr. , whereby the learned Trial Court decided a
preliminary legal issue in favour of the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein and against the
defendant/petitioner herein. For the purpose of
convenience of reference the parties hereinafter shall be
called respondent No.1 as ‘plaintiff’ and petitioner and
respondent No.2 as ‘defendants’ as in the suit before the
trial court.

2. The controversy between the parties has its genesis in
the execution, alleged cancellation and subsequent use
of a Power of Attorney in respect of immovable property
consisting of a four storeyed residential house with
shops and attic on land measuring 1315 sq.ft and 6
inches situated at Tanki Sarai, S.R.Gunj, Srinagar ,
falling under Khasra No. 669/1 min, recorded as ‘Abadi
Deh’.

3. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the said property
stated to have fallen to his share pursuant to a family
settlement with the other legal heirs in the year 1994 ad
that he is a registered migrant, who had left the Valley
in the year 1990.

4. Perusal of the pleadings in the present case reveals that
the plaintiff had executed a Power of Attorney in respect
of the suit property in favour of defendant No.2-Bashir

3
P a g e |

Ahmad Pootu, which was registered on 04.12.2000 ,
authorizing the attorney to deal with the property
including to sell, on behalf of plaintiff. It is the case of
the plaintiff that the said Power of Attorney (PoA) was
later cancelled before a Notary Public at Delhi on
27.09.2002 and consequently any Sale Deed executed,
thereafter, by the attorney being without authority is
null and void.

5. Plaintiff filed a declaratory suit for cancellation of sale
deed executed fraudulently and in connivance by both
the defendants in favour of defendant No.1 on
30.11.2005 , which was registered by the Sub Registrar,
Srinagar on 09.01.2006 and permanent injunction on
the ground that defendant No.2, who was given PoA on
05.12.2000, was not competent to execute the
questioned ‘sale deed’, as the PoA was later on and
before execution of sale deed on 30.11.2005, had been
cancelled by the plaintiff on 28.09.2002 . Therefore, the
execution of sale deed is illegal and liable to be
cancelled.

6. The defendant No.1-Shabir Ahmad, however, disputed
the aforesaid assertion. His case is that the plaintiff had
executed another Power of Attorney on 23.08.2003 in
favour of defendant No.2- Bashir Ahmad Pootu, inter
alia, for purposes connected with mutation of the
property in the revenue records; that the plaintiff

4
P a g e |

himself also approached the office of the Divisional
Commissioner Kashmir on 31.03.2004 seeking
permission for alienation of the suit property and
submitted the requisite documents and affidavit; that
the Sale Deed was executed on 30.11.2005 for a
consideration amount of Rs.10,11,638/- by the Attorney
in his favour and was registered before the Sub-
Registrar on 09.01.2006 .

7. The defendant No.1, upon entering appearance before
the Trial Court, raised objections regarding the
maintainability of the suit, cause of action, jurisdiction
and other connected matters; that the plaintiff had
himself approached the competent authority for
permission for alienation and that material facts, had
been suppressed by him while filing suit.

8. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, framed issues in the suit and one of the issues
framed, reads as under:
“Whether the registered power of attorney can
be cancelled by power of attorney which has
been notarized, if so, what would be its effect

on the instant suit?” (OPD)

9. The aforestated issue was treated as preliminary issue
and after hearing the parties came to be decided vide
impugned order, in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants, holding that if PoA does not create any
interest in favour of agent, then same can be terminated
or revoked through notice or communication only and

5
P a g e |

there is no need of registering instrument in this behalf,
as such, PoA dated 01.12.2000 , executed by the
plaintiff for the convenience, did not create any interest
of agent/defendant No.2, which was the subject matter
of PoA and therefore, same could be cancelled by notice
or communication, without registration of an
instrument.

10. Learned counsel for the defendants argued that the
Trial Court has committed illegality in deciding the
issue in the manner it has been done; that the question
relating to cancellation of the registered Power of
Attorney cannot be determined merely by looking at the
Notarised document relied upon, particularly when the
defendant No.1 had pleaded the existence of a
subsequent Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2003 and the
respondent's own conduct in approaching the Divisional
Commissioner for permission to alienate the property;
that the controversy requires evidence regarding
execution, cancellation, subsequent authorization,
conduct of the parties and the circumstances in which
the Sale Deed came to be executed.

11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, ex-adverso, contends
that the registered Power of Attorney stood cancelled
before execution of the Sale Deed and, therefore, the
attorney had no authority to execute the sale
transaction; that the issue has been rightly decided, in

6
P a g e |

accordance with law and based on this finding, the suit
can be decided at the early stage, determining the
cancellation of the questioned sale deed.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
record and considered the same.

13. From the pleadings, it is apparent that an irrevocable
Power of Attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour
of the defendant No.2 which was registered on
05.12.2000 in the office of Sub-Registrar at Srinagar
with regard to the property of the plaintiff, which is the
subject matter of suit pending before the trial court.

14. It is the contention of the plaintiff in his plaint that the
said registered irrevocable Power of Attorney was
cancelled by him on 28.09.2002 attested by Advocate
R.R.Gupta Notary Public, in Delhi. The defendant No.2,
however, executed the sale deed with regard to the suit
property on 30.11.2005 in favour of defendant No.1
based on the PoA executed by plaintiff on 05.12.2000
and the sale deed came to be registered before the
jurisdictional Sub Registrar on 09.01.2006 . This is the
document which is the subject matter of the suit before
the trial court, essentially on the question that the sale
deed could not have been executed by the defendant
No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 based on the PoA
executed by the plaintiff which was later revoked by
him.

7
P a g e |


15. The defendants, however, in their written statements
submitted that the plaintiff had executed another PoA in
favour of defendant No.2 with regard to the same
property authorizing him to appear on his behalf before
the revenue and statutory authorities and to seek
mutation with regard to the property in question; that
the plaintiff had himself applied for permission under
the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immoveable Property
(Preservation, Protection and Restraint On Distress
Sales) Act, 1997 (Migrants Act) to the Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir on 31.03.2004 and the sought
for permission was granted by Mr.B.B.Vyas the then
Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir on 06.11.2005
against the sale consideration of Rs.10,11638/-, as
such, they took a plea that the plaintiff is debarred from
raising the question of cancellation of the earlier PoA in
view of his later action in seeking permission from the
Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir in terms of the
Migrants Act and also authorizing the defendant No.2
to appear before the authorities on his behalf, as such,
the plaintiff is estopped from taking that plea in the
case before the trial court.

16. The trial court framed various issues vide interim order
dated 05.06.2012 and vide order dated 26.04.2018 the
following issue was framed on the subject of legality
with regard to cancellation of the PoA through a

8
P a g e |

notarized document of cancellation, which reads as
under:-
“Whether the registered power of attorney
can be cancelled by power of attorney which
has been notarized, if so, what would be its

effect on the instant suit? OPD”

17. The trial court after hearing the arguments on the
subject held that a registered PoA can been cancelled by
a notarized document also when PoA sought to be
cancelled did not create an interest of the attorney in
the subject matter, relying upon the judgments of the
Apex Court and different High Courts, it was concluded
that the registered PoA can be cancelled either orally
communicated or by a notarized document.

18. It is against the aforesaid order passed by the court
below that defendant no.1 has challenged the same
before this Court particularly in view of the fact that the
plaintiff after recording a finding on this preliminary
legal issue has been pressing an application moved by
him in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, to decree the
suit based on the finding returned on this preliminary
issue, without conducting further trial in the suit.

19. It appears that the defendant No.1 without raising all
these issues which have been raised in this revision
petition before the court below so as to oppose the
application moved by the plaintiff to decree the suit

9
P a g e |

invoking Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has rushed to this
Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court
by filing the instant Civil Revision Petition.

20. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has failed to
show any legal provision or any case law so as to
substantiate that a registered PoA cannot be cancelled
by a notarized document or even orally as has been
decided by the court below based on case laws.

21. There is no quarrel with regard to the legality of the
order passed by the court below on the subject that a
registered PoA can be cancelled without registering such
a document of cancellation, however, it is an important
fact to be considered by court below that whether
cancellation of PoA on which the sale deed was executed
had been conveyed to the attorney before execution of
sale deed or not. This is a question which has not been
addressed by the court below while deciding the issue
so as to record as to what could be the effect of the
finding on the suit pending before the trial court.
Perhaps this is the reason that the finding on the effect
on the afore-stated preliminary issue was not recorded
and case was ordered to be listed for further trial.

22. The defendants can also raise the other issues which
have been raised before this Court in this petition before
the trial court while opposing the application moved by
the plaintiff in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, such as

10
P a g e |

execution of subsequent PoA by the plaintiff in favour of
defendant No.2 with regard to the same property and
also applying for permission to sell the property in
favour of defendant No.1 under the Migrants Act.

23. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made
hereinabove the impugned order does not suffer from
any illegality or perversity so as to call for any
interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court. The instant civil revision petition is found to be
misconceived and being bereft of any merit and
substance is, as such, dismissed.

24. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith
along-with a copy of this judgment.


( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
09.09.2026
Muzammil. Q


Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No