IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.

in

I. Case Reference

Case Citation : (2017) ibclaw.in 1101 SC

Case Name : Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Appeal No. : Appeal (civil) 6790 of 2003
Judgment Date : 06-Dec-04
Court/Bench : Supreme Court of India
Coram : Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Justice H.K. Sema
A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2017) ibclaw.in
Case Status :
822 SC
Original Judgment : Download

II. Full text of the judgment

JUDGMENT

H.K.SEMA,J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 23-4-2003. The appeal
has been heard at length by a Bench in which one of us was a Member, Sema,J and by an order
dated 10-2-2004 reported as Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani And Another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. And
others, (2004) 3 SCC 584) it was remitted to the Tribunal with the following directions in paragraphs
24 at Page SCC 587:

“In our view, it is essential, before any further orders can be passed to first decide whether or
not the appellants have a share in this property. We therefore remit the matter back to the
Debt Recovery Tribunal to record a finding whether or not on the date the decrees were
passed, the appellants were co-owners of the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune and if so, to
what extent. In so deciding the Debt Recovery Tribunal will undoubtedly ascertain whether the
appellants had any independent source of income and whether they had contributed for
purchase of this property from their own independent income. The Debt Recovery Tribunal will
also decide whether this property was the residence of the appellants at the time possession
was taken. The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall permit the parties to lead evidence, both oral and
documentary. It must be clarified that the burden of proving that the appellants have a share
in the property will be on the appellants. The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall then forward its
decision to this Court within a period of six months from today.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Avoiding prolixity, but at the risk of repetition the directions were founded on the following facts:

The 1st appellant is the wife of the 5th respondent and the 2nd appellant is the wife of the 2nd
respondent.

The respondent-bank extended loan facilities to the 6th and 7th respondents, M/s Bhojwani Hotels
Pvt. Ltd. and Hotel Amir Pvt. Ltd., which are run by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 namely Dr. Laxmikant
Rewachand Bhojwani, Mr. Sanjay Laxmikant Bhojwani, Mr. Romy Laxmikant Bhojwani and Mr.

Print Date: June 17, 2025 Page 1 of 8 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

Vashdeo Rewchand Bhojwani. The loan facilities were to the extent of Rs. 22 crores in one case and
Rs.3.75 crores in the other. Respondents 2 to 5 were also guarantors and some of the properties
belonging to the parties have been mortgaged to the bank. Initially, Plot No.38, Koregaon Park, Pune
was also stated to have been mortgaged to the bank. It is now admitted by the respondent-bank that
the said plot was not mortgaged to the bank.

As the loan had not been repaid, the respondent-bank filed a suit against 2nd and 7th respondents
on 3.10.2000, OA No. 159-P of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
the DRT) for recovery of a sum of Rs.3.86 crores. The first respondent-bank also filed another suit
against respondent nos. 2 to 6 and one M/s Progressive Land Development Corporation, OA No. 160-
P of 2001 for recovery of a sum of Rs.27.5 crores. M/s Progressive Land Development Corporation is
a partnership firm of which the appellants are partners, along with others. The DRT by an order
dated 11-12-2000 passed an injunction order in an application made in OA No.160-P of 2001. The
plot no.38, Koregaon Park, Pune was one of the properties which the respondents were restrained
from alienating. The DRT also passed a decree on 13-9-2001 in OA No.159-P of 2001 in favour of the
respondent-bank in which the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune was shown as one of the
mortgaged properties. A recovery certificate was also issued by the DRT and pursuant thereto the
properties were attached on 8.11.2001 in which the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune was also
attached. Thereafter, pursuant to attachment, a public notice was published in the Times of India of
25.1.2002 publication, notifying that the properties of the second respondent have been attached.

It is only at this stage, the appellants have filed objection before the DRT against the attachment of
the residential property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune on 16.4.2002, which were rejected by the
Recovery Officer on the premise that he could not go beyond the decree. In the application, the
appellants claimed that they came to know of the attachment through the advertisement published
in the Times of India of 25.1.2002.

As already noticed, the 1st appellant is the wife of the 5th respondent and the 2nd appellant is the
wife of 2nd respondent. On 3.10.2000 the respondent-bank filed a suit against the 2nd respondent
and the 7th respondent, OA No.159-P of 2001 before the DRT for the recovery of a sum of Rs.3.86
crores. Again on 25th October, the respondent-bank filed another suit against respondent nos. 2 to 6
and one M/s Progressive Land Development Corporation, OA No.160-P of 2001 for recovery of a sum
of Rs.27.5 crores. M/s Progressive Land Development Corporation is a partnership firm of which the
appellants are the partners along with others. Thereafter, as recited above the DRT passed an
injunction order in which one of the properties the respondents were restrained from alienating was
38, Koregaon Park, Pune. On 13.9.2001, a decree was passed in OA No.159-P of 2001 and in the said
decree the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune was shown as one of the mortgaged properties. All
these proceedings against their husbands and M/s Progressive Land Development Corporation which
is a partnership firm and in which the appellants are partners along with others, were within the
knowledge of the appellants. The appellants, however, feigning ignorance of the facts and
proceedings, took a plea that they came to know about the attachment of the property at 38,
Koregaon Park, Pune only through the public notice published in the Times of India of 25.1.2002.

In the backdrop of given facts and circumstances, this Court has already observed in its order dated
10.2.2004 at page 585 SCC as under:-

“This averment is impossible to believe. It is clear that they were aware of the proceedings
against their husbands and family concerned.”

Print Date: June 17, 2025 Page 2 of 8 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

The property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune was purchased from Ms. Sushila Talera and the
consideration for the purchase was paid to her on 25.8.1987. It is not disputed that the indenture of
sale was executed on 5.9.1991. It is also not disputed that payment on 25.8.1987 was entirely made
by M/s Bhojwani Brothers, HUF, a separate legal entity. It is the case of the appellants that the said
amount was paid by M/s Bhojwani Brothers on behalf of the appellants and the same was treated as
a loan extended to the appellants which was subsequently repaid by the appellants in 1992. In short,
the appellants sought to build up a case, albeit belatedly, that the appellants had contributed the
consideration amount and they are the co-owners in respect of property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune.
The appellants are neither debtors nor guarantors and, therefore, the property in question to the
extent of their share in the property could not have been sold in the execution of the decree.

Pursuant to the directions quoted above, the DRT has recorded a finding by its order dated 2.8.2004.
The parties have filed objections to the finding. The Tribunal has framed the following issues,
purportedly pursuant to the directions by this Court:

(i) Whether the appellants have any share in the property (38, Koregaon Park, Pune) subject
matter of dispute?

(ii) Whether on the date decrees were passed, the appellants were co-owners of the said
property?

(iii) Whether the said property was the residence of the appellants at the time possession was
taken?

The fallacy of the Tribunal begins with the framing of the issues. The issues as noticed above are
inconsistent with the directions of this Court. The directions contained in paragraph 24 are that the
Tribunal was directed to record a finding whether or not on the date the decrees were passed the
appellants were co-owners of the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune and if so to what extent. In
deciding the aforesaid issue, the DRT will ascertain whether the appellants had any independent
source of income and whether they had contributed for purchase of this property from their own
independent income. The Tribunal was directed to permit the parties to lead evidence, both oral and
documentary. This Court further clarified that the burden of proving that the appellants have a share
in the property will be on the appellants.

The second fallacy of the order of Tribunal was allowing Mr.V.R.Bhojwani (power of attorney
holder), husband of appellant no.2 Ms.Mohini Laxmikant Bhojwani, to appear in the witness box on
behalf of the appellants. It may be noted that that the appellants were shy away from gracing the
box. The respondent-bank vehemently objected to allowing the holder of power of attorney of the
appellants to appear in the witness box on behalf of the appellants. This Court clarified that the
burden of proving that the appellants have a share in the property will be on the appellants and it
was incumbent on the appellants to have graced the box and discharged the burden that they have a
share in the property, the extent of share, the independent source of income from which they have
contributed towards the purchase of the property. The entire context of the order dated 10.2.2004
was forwarded to the Tribunal for the purpose. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal has framed its own
issues not consistent with the directions and recorded a finding contrary to the directions as
aforesaid.

Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-bank vehemently contended that

Print Date: June 17, 2025 Page 3 of 8 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

the appellants did not grace the box to lead evidence but authorised Mr. V.R. Bhojwani (power of
attorney holder) to appear on behalf of the appellants. Learned counsel contended that Mr. Bhojwani
was not an independent person to the litigation but was a judgment debtor in the suit and a co-
owner of the property and there was a clash of interest between the husband and wife and as such
he could not have been permitted to grace the box on behalf of the appellants. He further contended
that under Order III Rules 1 & 2 CPC a power of attorney holder can appear, apply or act in any
court but such act cannot be extended to depose in the witness box. He further submitted that in the
present case a power of attorney holder is not acting as a witness on behalf of the principal but he is
representing the principal himself. He further contended that deposing in a witness box and being
crossexamined is a personal act and cannot be done through an agent/power of attorney holder.

In the context of the directions given by this Court, shifting the burden of proving on the appellants
that they have a share in the property, it was obligatory on the appellants to have entered the box
and discharged the burden by themselves. The question whether the appellants have any
independent source of income and have contributed towards the purchase of the property from their
own independent income can be only answered by the appellants themselves and not by a mere
holder of power of attorney from them. The power of attorney holder does not have the personal
knowledge of the matter of the appellants and therefore he can neither depose on his personal
knowledge nor can he be cross-examined on those facts which are to the personal knowledge of the
principal.

Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the
principal. In our view the word “acts” employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in
respect of “acts” done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the
instrument. The term “acts” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In
other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of
attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the
principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the
principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in
respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.

Having regard to the directions in the order of remand by which this Court placed the burden of
proving on the appellants that they have a share in the property, it was obligatory on the part of the
appellants to have entered the box and discharged the burden. Instead, they allowed Mr. Bhojwani
to represent them and the Tribunal erred in allowing the power of attorney holder to enter the box
and depose instead of the appellants. Thus, the appellants have failed to establish that they have any
independent source of income and they had contributed for the purchase of the property from their
own independent income. We accordingly hold that the Tribunal has erred in holding that they have
a share and are co-owners of the property in question. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this
respect is set aside.

Apart from what has been stated, this Court in the case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Another,
(1999) 3 SCC 573 observed at page 583 SCC that “where a party to the suit does not appear in the
witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the
other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. In civil dispute the
conduct of the parties is material. The appellants have not approached the Court with clean hands.
From the conduct of the parties it is apparent that it was a ploy to salvage the property from sale in
the execution of Decree.

Print Date: June 17, 2025 Page 4 of 8 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

On the question of power of attorney, the High Courts have divergent views. In the case of Shambhu
Dutt Shastri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1986 2WLL 713 it was held that a general power of attorney
holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of
the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in
witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general
power of attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the
capacity of the plaintiff.

The aforesaid judgment was quoted with the approval in the case of Ram Prasad Vs. Hari Narain &
Ors. AIR 1998 Raj. 185. It was held that the word “acts” used in Rule 2 of Order III of the CPC does
not include the act of power of attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. Power of
attorney holder of a party can appear only as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever
knowledge he has about the case he can state on oath but be cannot appear as a witness on behalf of
the party in the capacity of that party. If the plaintiff is unable to appear in the court, a commission
for recording his evidence may be issued under the relevant provisions of the CPC.

In the case of Dr.Pradeep Mohanbay Vs. Minguel Carlos Dias reported in 2000 Vol.102 (1)
Bom.L.R.908, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a power of attorney can file a
complaint under Section 138 but cannot depose on behalf of the complainant. He can only appear as
a witness.

However, in the case of Humberto Luis & Anr. Vs. Floriano Armando Luis & Anr. reported in 2002
(2) Bom.C.R.754 on which the reliance has been placed by the Tribunal in the present case, the High
Court took a dissenting view and held that the provisions contained in order III Rule 2 of CPC cannot
be construed to disentitle the power of attorney holder to depose on behalf of his principal. The High
Court further held that the word “act” appearing in order III Rule 2 of CPC takes within its sweep
“depose”. We are unable to agree with this view taken by the Bombay High Court in Floriano
Armando (supra).

We hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri
(supra) followed and reiterated in the case of Ram Prasad (supra) is the correct view. The view taken
in the case of Floriano Armando Luis (supra) cannot be said to have laid down a correct law and is
accordingly overruled.

In the view that we have taken we hold that the appellants have failed to discharge the burden that
they have contributed towards the purchase of property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune from any
independent source of income and failed to prove that they were coowners of the property at 38,
Koregaon Park, Pune. This being the core question, on this score alone, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

Despite, we now proceed to consider the documentary evidence produced. The admitted position is
that the consideration for sale was paid by M/s Bhojwani Brothers, a distinct legal entity. M/s
Bhojwani Brothers is a Hindu Undivided Family. The said HUF as a distinct entity filed Income Tax
Returns. Shri L.R. Bhojwani and his two sons Sanjay and Romy Bhojwani had filed income tax
returns showing themselves as owners of 1/4th share each in suit property. In the photo copies of
the income tax returns filed by Shri V.R. Bhojwani (power of attorney holder) 1/4th is struck off and
is interpolated into 1/7th share. This fact was admitted by him in cross-examination, Vol. V at page
115. He has also admitted that the correction is not depicted in the original papers received from

Print Date: June 17, 2025 Page 5 of 8 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

income tax office. The Tribunal also holds that there was interpolation by pencil which was not
depicted in the original papers received from the Income Tax office.

Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel, has drawn our attention to the indenture for sale dated
5.9.1991 and submitted that the name of the appellants appeared at Sl. Nos. 3 and 4 of the sale
indenture. According to the counsel they are the co-purchasers. We are unable to accept this
contention merely because their names appear in the sale indenture by itself would not be a
conclusive proof that they are the co-purchasers. Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, referred to the Income Tax Return for the Assessment year 1988-89 in which at Sl.No.6
(Vol.V at page No.144) it is shown that during the year the assessee, 2nd appellant, has paid
Rs.4,65,000/- to Mrs. Susheela Talera towards purchase of Plot No. 38, Koregaon Park, Pune, out of
loan taken from M/s Bhojwani Bros. Counsel also drew our attention to Sl.Nos. 3 and 4 at page 155
Vol.V showing that the assessee has paid Rs. 45,000/- towards Stamp Duty for Plot at 38, Koregaon
Park, Pune, out of loan taken from M/s Bhojwani Bros. and deposited Rs. 76,000/- in Dr.L.R.Bhojwani
Jt. A/c towards the payment for plot at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune, out of sale proceeds of 100 shares
of Bajaj Auto Ltd. at Rs. 710 per share. He has also drawn our attention to Sl.No.5 at page 159 Vol.V
showing that during the year assessee has received the following foreign remittances under Foreign
Exchange (Immunities) Scheme 1991:

a) US$ 50,000 vide DD No. 484485 drawn on Marine Midland Bank dt 19.10.91, NA, New
York. The Indian currency equivalent to Rs. 12,88,660 has been deposited in SB A/c NO.7930
with UBI, Pune Camp Branch. The xerox copy of Certificate No.284 issued by UBI, Pune Camp
Branch is attached.

b) US$ 25,000 vide TT No. 559271 drawn on Bank of India, Singapore. The Indian currency
equivalent to Rs. 6,43,902 has been deposited in SB A/c No. 7930 with UBI, Pune Camp Br.
The xerox copy of Certificate No.92 issued by UBI, Poona Camp Branch is attached.

At page 160 Vol.V, Sl.No.8 and 9 it is shown that the assessee has deposited Rs. 3,47,465 in CA No.
22035 with Union Bank of India, Poona Camp Branch towards the payment to be made for
construction of residential house at 38 Koregaon Park, Pune, out of sale proceeds of shares and
foreign remittances received. The assessee has paid Rs. 15,03,290/- to M/s Bhojwani Brothers
towards the return of loan taken on CA out of foreign remittances received. He has also shown at
page 164 Vol.V, Sl.No.6 and 8 that the assessee has invested Rs.75,000/- in construction of bungalow
at 38 Koregaon Park, Poona, out of rent and salary received and balance in SB A/c No. 7930 with
UBI, Poona Camp Branch and sale proceeds of shares. The Assessee has paid Rs. 2,26,995/- to M/s
Bhojwani Brothers vide Cheque No. 286141 dated 31.3.93 on Current Account out of gift received
from Mr. Arjan Khialani of Singapore. Counsel has also shown at page 167 Vol.V, Sl.No.8 that during
the year 1993- 94 the assessee has acquired 1/7th share in bungalow at 38 Koregaon Park, Pune,
which was ready for possession in December 1993. The cost of her share comes to Rs. 21,25,966/-
which was partly financed by M/s Bhojwani Brothers, Poona.

There is no proof that the source is from the independent income of the appellants. As already
noticed the figure 1/7th share has been interpolated with pencil and no reliance can be placed on
this document.

In respect of appellant No.1 Mrs. Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani, the learned counsel submitted that during
the assessment year 1988-89 it is shown at Sl.No.1 page 169 Vol.V that the appellant has paid

Print Date: June 17, 2025 Page 6 of 8 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

Rs.4,65,000/- to Mrs. Susheela Talera towards purchase of Plot No.38 Koregaon Part out of loan
taken from M/s Bhojwani Brothers of Rs.4,65,000/-. It is also shown at Sl.No.3 at page 178 Vol.V that
the assessee has paid Rs. 45,000/- towards stamp duty for plot at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune, out of
loan taken from M/s Bhojwani Brothers. At page 182 Vol.V, Sl.No.5 it is shown that the assessee has
received the following remittances under Foreign Exchange (Immunity) Scheme 1991:-

? US$ 50,000 vide DD No. 484486 at 19.10.91 drawn on Marine Midland Bank, NA, New York.
The Indian Currency equivalent to Rs. 12,88,660 has been deposited in SB A/c No. 14910 with
UBI, Pune Camp Br. The xerox copy of the Cert No. 285 issued by UBI, Pune Camp Branch is
attached.

? US$ 25,000 vide TT No. 559271 Bk of India, Singapore. The Indian Currency equivalent to
Rs. 6,43,902 has been deposited in SB A/c No.14910 with UBI, Poona Camp Br. The xerox copy
of Cert. No.92 issued by UBI, Poona Camp Branch is attached.

At Sl.no.8 it is shown that the assessee has deposited Rs. 2,87,037/- in CA A/c No.22035 with Union
Bank of India, Poona Camp Br. towards the payment to be made for construction of residential house
at 38 Koregaon Park, Pune out of LIC loan, sale of shares and partly from foreign remittances
received. At Sl.No.9 it is shown that the assessee has paid Rs. 13,90,383/- to M/s Bhojwani Bros
towards the return of loan taken on CA out of foreign remittances received.

The above figures do not disclose the source of income and that this income is their own
independent income and they had contributed for purchase of the suit property. No reliance can be
placed on the said documents.

Regarding the capital received from foreign remittances under Foreign Exchange (Immunity)
Scheme, 1991, learned counsel Mr. Rohtagi contended that under the scheme the appellants are
immune from disclosing the source of receipt. It is true that as per the terms of the scheme the
recipient will not be required to disclose for any purpose the nature and source of remittances and
further no enquiry or investigation will be commenced against the recipient under any law on the
ground that he has received such remittance. It only protects the appellant from prosecution under
FERA and income tax. It does not prohibit the appellants from disclosing the sources. Furthermore,
the remittance, so received by the appellants, could not be described as income, much less an
independent income. As already noticed, in the instant case, a duty is cast upon the appellants to
discharge the burden of proving that the appellants have a share in the property. The appellants
could have disclosed the source of remittance to discharge the burden.

At this stage we may also notice that the appellants relied upon the gifts from relatives and friends
see Vol.V pages 57-59 which show that the appellants have received some amount of gifts in terms of
US$ from foreign countries. Mr. V.R.Bhojwani admitted that the three donors were not related by
blood and two donors were distant cousins. It is apparent that the so-called gifts made by the donors
were actually sent by the husbands of the appellants through name lenders and by no stretch of
imagination it could be an income, much less an independent income of the appellants. Similarly, the
net income of the appellants during the year 1992-93 shown at pages 57- 59 (Vol.V) was not
adequate to repay the loan.

For the reasons aforestated the appellants have miserably failed to establish that on the date the
decrees were passed, the appellants were the co-owners of the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune.

Print Date: June 17, 2025 Page 7 of 8 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

They further failed to establish that they have any independent source of income and they have
contributed for purchase of the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune, from their own independent
income. Further the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving that the appellants have a
share in the property. The other connected issues are only consequential to this issue and it may not
be necessary for us to deal with them in view of our decision above. Accordingly, the appeal fails and
is dismissed with costs.

----

–––

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this document including case-
summary/brief about the decision/ add. info/headnote/ judgment/order/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable
in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or
advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this document. The authenticity of this text must be verified
from the original source. Read more here.

Print Date: June 17, 2025 Page 8 of 8 Printed for: