Ajit J. Gunjal, J.

Site bearing No.256 and measuring 20' X 25' of Sonnenahalli further extension, Bangalore was allotted in favour of one Abdul Aleem. A lease-cum-sale agreement was also executed on 2nd February 1988. He was also put in possession pursuant to a Possession Certificate dated 23-4-1988.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the said Abdul Aleem was in financial difficulty and offered to sell the property to the 2nd petitioner i.e., the husband of the 1st petitioner on 19-2-1988 for a consideration. He received more than 80% of the sale consideration on the date of execution of the sale agreement. He has also put the purchaser in possession of the schedule property and has delivered all the original documents issued by the respondent to the said Abdul Aleem. The balance of sale consideration was also paid. Hence, Abdul Aleem executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 28-4-1988 appointing the 2nd petitioner as his lawful attorney to deal with the schedule property, including transfer. The copy of the General Power of Attorney is at Annexure 'B'. The 2nd petitioner applied and obtained the building plan and has put up a construction and has been residing there with petitioner No.1. The case of the petitioners is that after the embargo was removed, they made an application to the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to execute a registered sale deed but however, the respondents declined and have issued an endorsement at Annexure-'J', which is impugned in this writ petition. The endorsement would disclose that the said Abdul Aleem had not given power to the 2nd petitioner to transfer the property in question. Hence, declined to execute the sale deed.

3. Mr. P.V. Chandrashekar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the writ petition submits that the transfer would also include sale. He further submits that a Circular is issued by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority indicating that if the entire sale consideration is deposited with 25% penalty, the transfer document could be executed.

4. Mr. K. Krishna, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the said Circular but however submits that the General Power of Attorney does not specifically permit the 2nd petitioner to sell the site in question.

5. Apparently the controversy would revolve around the usage of the word transfer in the General Power of Attorney at para 3. Indeed it is to be noticed that the word transfer has wide connotation. The transfer may be by means of lease, gift, mortgage, Will or sale or by any other mode wherein the interest of the property is sought to be transferred. The said word transfer cannot be limited in its usage, excluding the sale. The definition of transfer as defimed in the Transfer of Property Act is, it means an Act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself, and one or more other living persons and "to transfer property" is to perform such act.

6. Indeed Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act would deal with Sale. Sale is defined as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Such transfer in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered document. Thus even a sale would include the transfer of right, title and interest. Hence, a restricted meaning cannot be given to the word transfer in the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Indeed it would encompass all kinds of transfer including a sale. Having regard to the Circular issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, it was incumbent upon the respondents to execute the necessary sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner. Consequently, following order is passed:

a) Petition stands allowed.

b) The impugned endorsements at Annexures ‘G’ and 'J' stand quashed.

c) The respondent-Bangalore Development Authority shall execute the necessary sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner in compliance with the Circular dated 7-1-2008.

Rule is issued and made absolute.