Cancellation of irrevocable A GPA

I think you could simply issue notice to the power holder and in newspapers as well as sending a copy of revocation to the Sub Registrar concerned where the property is situated, if the GPA is unregistered deed.

If it was a Registered deed, you may have to execute a cancellation deed duly registered with the Registrar who registered your original GPA. Notice should also be sent to power holder.

Thanks for your Repsonse

It is a registered as A GPA in which it is metioned as the seller can neither cancel it nor revoce this A GPA ?

    Smt. Janak Vohra vs Dda 

                          JUDGMENT


   1. The petitioner has field this petition for mutation in her favor
   since the petitioner claims to be the only legal heir of the deceased
   father in whose name the flat stands registered and the Will is stated
   to have been executed by the late father on 7.3.93 in favor of the
   petitioner.

   2. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced the record and
   states that the respondent has received two applications. The first
   application is by the petitioner for mutation of the flat in her name
   and the second application is for conversion into freehold of the flat
   by the brother of the deceased owner who is the Uncle of the petitioner
   and who claims title on the basis of an agreement to sell coupled with
   power of attorney of 1997.

   3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is further
   stated that the copy of the Will dated 7.3.1996 submitted by the
   petitioner mentions the factum of the execution of the earlier Will by
   the original allottee in favor of the Smt. Kanta Nayar wife of Sh. S.K.
   Nayar who is the brother of the original allottee being the father of
   the petitioner. In terms of the Will dated 7.3.1996, the earlier Will
   is sought to be revoked though the date of the earlier Will is not
   mentioned. The agreement to sell in favor of Sh. S.K. Nayar is dated
   12.4.1997. In view of this fact both the parties were asked to appear
   in the office of the respondents with the original documents and since
   it was not possible to sort out the issue both parties were advised to
   have their disputes decided by the appropriate court of law.

   4. It is thus the contention of learned counsel for the respondent as
   set out in the counter affidavit that on the one hand a little is
   sought to be set up by Sh. S.K. Nayar on the basis of the agreement to
   sell for consideration and on the other by the petitioner as being the
   direct descended as also in terms of the Will executed in her favor. It
   is thus stated that respondent is not competent to decide the title of
   the property in question. It is also stated that as per policy
   guidelines of the respondent for conversion from lease-hold to
   free-hold in case of disputes between the allottees and the attorney
   holder application for grant of free hold rights is to be entertained
   only after the disputes are settled between the parties and till such
   time no mutation or conversion can be entertained. It is in view
   thereof that neither the conversion application of Sh. S.K. Nayar is
   being entertained nor the mutation in the name of the petitioner till
   the matter is settled by a competent court.

   5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
   the parties.

   6. I have perused the original records produced before me by the
   respondents which show that an agreement to sell for consideration
   dated 12.4.1977 has been propounded by Sh. S.K. Nayar. The agreement
   also provides that the same is irrevocable and binding on the parties
   and that the possession of the flat has been delivered to Sh. S.K.
   Nayar who will deposit the remaining monthly Installments in terms of
   the demand of the DDA. This agreement to sell is coupled with the GPA
   executed by the original allottee in favor of Sh. S.K. Nayar. It is
   also relevant to note that even the Will being set forth by the
   petitioner refers to an earlier Will of the deceased allottee in favor
   of the wife of Sh. Nayar. These documents clearly show that the claim
   of Sh. Nayar cannot be brushed aside and has to be adjudicated by a
   competent court. I am thus unable to accept the contention of learned
   senior counsel for the petitioner that on the demise of the deceased
   allottee the power of attorney in favor of Sh. Nayar comes to an end
   and thus Sh. Nayar has no rights in the property. The power of attorney
   is for consideration as is apparent from the agreement to sell.

   7. It may also be noted that no copies of the documents of title being
   allotment letter, possession letter and possession slip etc. have been
   filed along with the writ petition.

   8. The Division Bench of this Court in Asha M Jain v. Canara Bank and
   Ors.  has held that a GPA, SPA and Will coupled with
   the agreement to sell creates interest in the property since the nature
   of these transactions are different from a mere agreement to sell. The
   Division Bench also referred to the earlier decisions of this court in
   Harbans Singh v. Shanti Devi 1977 RLR 487 where it was held that in
   such a nature of transaction of agreement to sell coupled with
   irrevocable power of attorney the same cannot be cancelled or revoked
   on account of interest or right created in the subject matter so as to
   prejudice the said interest. The same was the view in Shikha Properties
   (P) Ltd. v. S. Bhagwant Singh and Ors. 74 (1998) DLT 173. In Kuldeep
   Singh v. Surinder Singh 76 (1998) DLT 236 learned Single Judge of this
   court observed that the power of attorney sales in Delhi is the common
   mode of sale of immovable property to get over the legislative
   restrictions of transfer of properties. The learned Single Judge relied
   upon the judgment of Supreme Court in S. Chattanatha Karagalar v.
   Central Bank of India Limited and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 1856 and Smt. Indira
   Kaur and Ors. v. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor  where it was
   held that in order to arrive at a real nature of transaction, it is
   open to the Court to look into the attendant and surrounding
   circumstances and contemporary documents.

   9. The aforesaid facts show that there is dispute of title between the
   petitioner and her Uncle. In view of the conflicting claims of title it
   would not be possible for the respondent to mutate the property in the
   name of the petitioner or to convert it into free hold in the name of
   the Uncle. The dispute of title have to be adjudicated in appropriate
   civil proceedings and in view thereof no direction can be issued to the
   respondent to mutate the property in the name of the petitioner. It is
   open to the petitioner to approach the Civil court for adjudication of
   the title dispute or for any other relief including the claim of the
   mutation.

   10. Writ petition stands disposed of.

    
  

I do agree with my Ld. Friends.