Madras High Court
K.V.Alagesan vs K.V.Ramakrishnan on 30 April, 2025
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
A.S.No.154 of 2014
K.V.Alagesan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.K.V.Ramakrishnan
2.K.V.Ganesan
3.K.V.Jayaprakash
4.Ramalingam
5.S.Ponnusamy
6.S.Sekar
7.S.Selvaraj
8.K.Sukumar ... Respondents
A.S.No.155 of 2014
K.V.Alagesan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Sekar
2.S.Selvaraj ... Respondents
COMMON PRAYER : The Appeal suits have been filed under Section 96
C.P.C. against the Judgement and Decree dated 11.10.2013 passed in
O.S.Nos.115 of 2007 & 43 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District
Court, Namakkal.
1/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm )
A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
For Appellant in ... M/s.Chithra Sampath
A.S.Nos.154 & Senior counsel
155 of 2014 for Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondent ... No appearance
Nos.1 to 3
Respondent Nos.4 & 8 ... No appearance (Notice served)
For Respondent ... Mr.S.Senthil
No.5
For Respondent ... Mr.D.Ganesh Raj
Nos.6 & 7
COMMON JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the Judgement and Decree dated 11.10.2013 passed in O.S.Nos.115 of 2007 & 43 of 2009 by the Additional District Court, Namakkal, the plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 and the defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2009 has preferred the appeal suits.
2.The plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 and the defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal, is the appellant in both the appeal suits. The defendants in O.S.No.115 of 2007 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.43 of 2009 are the respondents herein. 2/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
3.O.S.No.43 of 2009 was transferred to District Court, Namakkal from the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal and it was assigned to Additional District Judge, Namakkal.
4.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2007.
5.Suits filed for declaration of title, delivery of possession and for permanent injunction.
6.The plaintiff's case, in brief, in O.S.No.115 of 2007 is as follows:
(a).The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are sons of one M.K. Venkatachalam. The properties which are described in Schedule "A"
belonged to the plaintiff under three sale deeds, one dated 20.09.1995 executed by Lakshmi and others registered as Doc.No.2498 of 2003 in Book- 1, Vol. 1896, another dated 29.09.2003 executed by L.S. Gopalan and others which was registered as Doc. No. 1891 of 2003 in Book-I and the third one dated 20.08.2004 executed by Karuppannan and others which was registered as Doc. No.1856 of 2004 in Book of the Office of the Joint Sub Registrar No.II, Namakkal.
3/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
(b).The properties which are described as scheduled "B" belonged to the defendants 1 to 3 under several registered sale deeds. Item-1 of the properties which are described in Schedule 'B' belonged to the 1st defendant under two registered sale deeds, one dated 16.07.2001 registered as Doc. No. 2843 of 2001 and another dated 29.09.1995 registered as Doc. No.2497 of 95 in the office of the Joint-II Sub Registrar, Namakkal. Item-II of the properties in Schedule 'B' belonged to the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed dated 20.09.1995 and registered as Doc.No.2499 of 95 in Book-I, Vol. 1896 of the Joint Sub Registrar No.11, Namakkal. Item III of the properties belonged to the 3rd defendant under 2 registered sale deeds one dated 20.08.2003 registered as Doc. No. 1533 of 2003 and another sale deed dated 09.07.2004 registered as Doc.No.1616 of 2004 in the office of the Joint No.Il, Sub Registrar, Namakkal.
(c).The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 originally were proposing to sell the said 'A', & 'B' schedule of properties and they were negotiating with the 4th defendant and he agreed to purchase the suit 'A' schedule of properties for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) and as a token of this understanding, a receipt was given by the plaintiff, though no consideration was paid by the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant wanted a registered deed of 4/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 power of attorney to be executed by plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 appointing the 5th defendant as their agent to complete the sale transaction. Accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 have jointly executed a registered deed of power of attorney appointing the 5th defendant as their power of attorney agent on 30.06.2005 registered as Doc. No.284 of 2005 in Book-IV of Joint I Sub Registrar, Namakkal for completing the sale of the properties.
(d).Immediately, within two or three days of the Execution of deed power of attorney dated 30.06.2005, the plaintiff changed his mind not to sell the properties described in schedule 'A' of the plaint mentioned properties and proposed to revoke the power of attorney deed. But the Defendants 1 to 3 prevailed upon the plaintiff with a promise that his properties will not be dealt with by the 5th defendant under the deed of power of attorney and requested the plaintiff not to cancel it since the power of attorney being a joint deed of power of attorney, if cancelled, the entire power will stand cancelled resulting in great hardship to the defendants 1 to 3 in dealing with the properties described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint. The 4th defendant had returned the receipt given by the plaintiff and it was destroyed as a token of the revocation of the understanding between the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. The plaintiff believed the promises of the defendants 1 to 3 further since the receipt was 5/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 destroyed, there was nothing to suspect the bona fides of the defendants 1 to 3 and therefore he did not choose to cancel the deed of power of attorney and the plaintiff was in possession, occupation and enjoyment of his properties. In the meantime, the defendants 6 and 7 along with the 5th defendant approached the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 with a proposal to purchase the suit A and B schedule of properties as a single block. The plaintiff made it clear that he was not willing to part with his properties and the defendants 6 and 7 may purchase the properties of defendants 1 to 3 which are described in Schedule 'B' in the plaint. The plaintiff cancelled the power given to the 5 th defendant by issuing a registered notice dated 04.08.2006. The notice was served upon the 5th defendant on 05.08.2006 and the 5th defendant has not chosen to issue any reply till date. The plaintiff made a publication of the notice of cancellation of the power of attorney by issuing a public notice published in "Kalai Kadir" daily issue dated 05.08.2006. Thereafter, on 27.7.2007, the defendants 5 to 7 with a set of rowdy elements have forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and taken possession of the suit A schedule of properties. The farm servant of the plaintiff, Mari@ Mariappan with his family was living in the Field House in suit A schedule of properties. The farm servant and his family were driven out of their house by force by defendants 5 to 7 and their men. The plaintiff who is a resident of Salem came to know this crime and he 6/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 immediately reported the matter with Namakkal Police. The Police have registered the report in FIR No.497 of 2007. The Police have not taken any action against them. Hence, filed the suit with the following prayers:
i) To declare that the sale transaction of suit 'A' schedule of properties in the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 registered as Doc.No. 1533 of 2005 Joint-1 Sub Registrar, Namakkal is fraudulent, null and void and non est in law;
ii) To direct the defendants 6 and 7 to deliver possession of the suit A schedule of properties to the plaintiff with in such period as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in default permit the plaintiff to execute the decree and recover possession of the suit A schedule of properties and recover the costs from the defendants;
iii) To direct the defendants 6 and 7 to deliver the title deeds described in Schedule A(1) to the plaintiff within such period as this Honourable Court may fix in default permit the plaintiff to execute the decree and recover the title deeds.
7/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
iv) To restrain the defendants 6 and 7 by means of a permanent injunction from selling, mortgaging or causing any other encumbrance over the suit A schedule of properties;
v) award costs of the suit.
7.The 6th and 7th defendants contested the suit and filed a written statement inter alia contended that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 had availed several loans and were under lot of debts and therefore, decided to sell the suit properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/- to the 4th defendant so as to discharge the loan. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 executed sale agreement receipt in favour of the 4th defendant by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 appointed the 5th Defendant as Power Agent to execute the sale deed. Later when the 4th defendant did not have enough funds to purchase, the defendants 6 and 7 were referred to purchase the property. The defendants 6 and 7 paid the sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000 Lakhs that was paid towards discharge of several loan borrowed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The Defendants 6 and 7 have paid Rs. 7 Lakhs as sale consideration for the A schedule suit property and this was used towards discharge of 8/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 Rs.3,00,000/- Loan availed by the Plaintiff from Shriram Investment and Rs.4,00,000/- Loan availed by the Plaintiff from one Muthusamy under a promissory note. The Plaintiff disturbed the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit properties by the 6th and 7th defendants and therefore, the Defendants 6 and 7 filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Additional District Court, Namakkal in O.S.No.43 of 2009.
8.The plaintiffs' case, in brief, in O.S.No.43 of 2009 is as follows:
The plaintiffs are brothers. They purchased the property from the defendant with a proper consideration by way of the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 and came into possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant had no right over the plaint schedule property. The patta also transferred in the name of the plaintiffs. Electricity connection was also changed in the name of the plaintiffs. They are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the defendant attempted to interfere with the enjoyment of the plaintiffs' possession, they filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint. Further, contended that the three brothers of the defendant and this defendant originally wanted to dispose of their properties and therefore they have jointly executed a 9/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 registered deed of power of attorney on 30.06.2005 and registered as Doc.
No.284 of 2005 in Book-IV of the District Registrar, Namkkal and appointed one S.Ponnusamy as their joint power of attorney agent. Subsequently, this defendant changed his decision and decided not to sell away the properties. Hence, this defendant was proposing to cancel the power of attorney. At that stage, this defendant's three brothers and the power of attorney agent promised that this defendant's properties will not be dealt and only the properties of the three brothers of the defendant will be dealt with. This defendant had nothing to doubt the bona fides of the promises of his three brothers and S. Ponnusamy. The activities of his brothers and his power of attorney agent was not inspiring confidence and therefore this defendant cancelled the power given to Ponnusamy by issuing a Registered Notice dated 04.08.2006 and also by publishing in the daily issue Kalai Kadir dated 05.08.2006. The plaintiff continued to possess and enjoy the suit property till the 27th day of July 2007. This defendant came to know of the sale transaction dated 11.07.2005 only when the suit summons in the above suit were served upon this defendant. The plaintiffs after obtaining an exparte injunction order had taken forcible possession of the suit property from this defendant and this defendant also had reported the matter to the Police on 27.07.2007 and the complaint was registered in FIR. No.497 of 2007. But the 10/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 Police did not take any action against the plaintiffs in view of their influence and also the order of injunction granted in their favour in the above suit and thus pleaded to dismiss the suit.
9.The learned Additional District Judge, upon considering the above pleadings, framed the following issues for consideration in common;
mry; tHf;F vz;/115-2007d; vGtpdhf;fs;
1/ 11/07/2005k; njjpapl;l Mtz vz; 1533-2005d;go Jiz rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfk; ehkf;fy; vz;1y; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l fpua gj;jpukhdJ gpujpgpnah$dkw;wJ vd;gJ rhpah:
2/ thjpapd; gth; V$z;lhd 5k;gpujpthjp thjpf;F vjpuhf bray;gl;Ls;shuh> 3/ jhth rp ml;ltiz brhj;ij bghWj;J thjpia Vkhw;wp ehkf;fy; Jiz 1 rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; fpuak; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ rhpah> 4/ thjpf;F jhthtpy; nfhhpa[s;sgo tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; fpilf;fToajh> 5/ jhthtpy; nfhhpa[s;sgo thjpf;F RthjPd xg;gilg;g[ fpilf;ff;Toajh> 6/ thjpf;F jhthtpy; nfhhpa[s;sgo epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis fpilf;ff;Toajh> 11/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 7/ thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ntWghpfhuk; vd;d> TLjy; vGtpdhf;fs;
1/ thjpf;Fk; 4k; gpujpthjpf;Fk; ,ilna fpua xg;ge;jk; Vw;gltpy;iy vd;gJ cz;ikah> 2/ 18/05/2005 njjpapl;l epy fpua urPjhdJ thjpahy; btw;Wg;ngg;ghpy; ifbaGj;J nghl;L bfhLj;jij itj;J nkhroahf jahhpf;fg;gl;l Mtzk;. cz;ikahd Mtzky;y vd;gJ rhpah> 3/ 11/07/2005y; Vw;gl;l fpuag;gj;jpuk; nkhroahf gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;llJ vd;gJ rhpah> thjp bgw;w flid brYj;jptpl;L 11/07/2005 md;W fpuak; bgwg;gl;ljhf brhy;tJ cz;ikahdjy;y vd;gJ rhpah> 4/ 27/07/2007 tiu V ml;ltiz brhj;jhdJ thjpapd; RthjPdj;jpy; ,Ue;jJ vd;gJ cz;ikah> 5/ 11/07/2005y; Vw;gl;l fpuag;gj;jpug;go V ml;ltiz brhj;J 6. 7 gpujpthjpfsplk; xg;gilf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gJ rhpah> 6/ thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ntW ghpfhuk; vd;d > mry; tHf;F vz; 43-2009d; vGtpdhf;fs;
1/ jhthtpy; nfhhpa[s;sgo thjpf;F epue;ju
cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; fpilf;ff;Toajh>
2/ thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ntW ghpfhuk; vd;d>
12/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm )
A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
10.Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A46 were marked. On the side of the Defendants, five witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW5 and Exs.B1 to B25 were marked. Further, 14 documents were filed as X1 to X14.
11.The Trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, dismissed the suit in O.S.No.115 of 2007 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.43 of 2009.
Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 and the defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2009 preferred these present appeal suits.
12.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court in dismissing the suit for declaration, delivery of possession, title deeds and granting permanent injunction in favour of the respondents is absolutely unsustainable and contrary to the facts and weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 with respect of the “A” schedule properties is not supported by consideration, hence, under Section 25 of the Contract Act, any contract which is not supported with consideration is void.
13/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 (12.1).The 5th respondent, who is the power of attorney agent, was the competent person to speak about passing of consideration with respect to the above sale, however, he was not examined as witness to speak about the same, therefore it is to be held that the sale deed in respect of A Schedule properties is not supported by consideration. The trial court ought to have appreciated the fact that the respondents 6 and 7 have not examined themselves as witnesses in the suit to prove their case. They have appointed one Marappan as their power of attoney agent and examined him as Dw1 and filed proof affidavit on behalf of defendants 6 and 7. The respondents 6 and 7 are the only competent witnesses to prove their pleadings and their failure to appear as witnesses would amount to suppression of evidence and an adverse înference is to be drawn against them.
(12.2).The court below ought to have appreciated that the A and B Schedule properties of the said sale deed are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Joint II Sub Registrar, Namakkal and C Schedule properties i.e., 262 ½ Sq ft are situated within the limits of Joint Sub Registrar I, Namakkal. The sale deed registered as Doc No. 1533 of 2005 before the Joint Sub Registrar I, Namakkal have no jurisdiction with respect of A and B Schedule properties, hence the sale is not valid.
14/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 (12.3).Further, the trial court erred in not considering the fact that on 11.07.2005, the 8th respondent executed a sale deed with respect to the C Schedule Properties in favour of the 5th respondent and the same was presented for registration before Joint Sub Registrar I, Namakkal between 2.00 and 3.00 PM and the said sale deed was Registered in Doc No. 1525 of 2005, subsequent to that, along with the A and B Schedule properties, C Schedule properties were sold to the respondents 6 and 7 through a sale deed and the same was presented for registration (Doc No. 1533 of 2005) before the Joint Sub Registrar I, Namakkal in between 4.00 and 5.00 pm along with another sale deed document (Doc No. 1534 of 2005) executed by the respondents 6 and 7 in favour of 8th respondent with respect of C Schedule properties would establish the fact that the said transactions are fictitious one. The court below ought to have consider that the 8th respondent executed a sale deed in Doc No. 1525 of 2005 with respect to the C Schedule properties in favour of the 5th respondent for a value of Rs.15,000/- and the respondents 6 and 7 sold the same property in Document No. 1534 of 2005 with a value of Rs.10,000/- would shows that to register the sale deed with respect to A and B Schedule properties before the Joint Sub Registrar No.I, Namakkal by defrauding the appellant, the respondents have set up such transactions, thus 15/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 the sale deed of A and B schedule properties in the sale deed registered as Doc No. 1533 of 2005 is vitiated by fraud on registration and is a nullity.
(12.4).The trial court ought to have considered that on 08.07.2005, all the stamp papers were purchased and through the stamp paper Nos.8350, 8351, 8352, 8th respondent executed sale deed with respect to C Schedule property in favour of the 5th respondent, the respondents 6 and 7 were in turn sold the above said C Schedule property through a sale deed in stamp paper Nos.8353, 8354, 8355 to the 8th respondent after purchasing the said C Schedule property along with A and B Schedule properties through stamp paper Nos.8386 to 8410 would establish the fact that the said transactions are not bona fide one. The Sale Receipts Exs. B13 and 14 which were alleged to have executed by the appellant and the respondents 1 to 3 in favour of 4th respondent were not proved by examining 4th respondent, hence it shall not be taken as an evidence to appreciate the case of the respondents.
(12.5).The court below ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the defendants, namely, defendants 6 and 7, the purchasers of the suit property, when none of the parties to the suit had examined themselves in support of the pleadings. The court below should not have looked into the 16/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 evidence of D.Ws.3 to 5, who claimed to be witnesses to the documents containing Exs.B12,13,14 and 24, when the above documents had not been marked at all and the persons concerned with the same had not been examined. The payments had been made to Sri Ram Investments Mohanur to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/ and that, the sale price was supported by consideration to that extent is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.
(12.6).The Court below did not peruse Exs.A 36 to A 46, the receipts issued by Sri Ram Investments to the plaintiff after the alleged payment of Rs.3 lakhs by the defendants 6 and 7 in discharge of the plaintiffs loan a/c 481/05, which clearly establishes that the total loan outstanding in the said account of Rs.5 lakhs and the payments of interest made by the plaintiff were for the entire loan amount of Rs.5 lakhs and not for the alleged reduced principal of Rs.2 lakhs. The court below did not note the categorical admission of D.W. 5. the alleged witness to the document containing Exs.B13 and B14 signature, that on the date of the alleged agreement of sale, ie 18.05.05, the plaintiff had the custody of all his title deeds and they were shown to the defendants. If that be so, the allegation that the defendants had obtained the documents of title from Muthusamy only on 11.07.05 is false 17/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 and the entire evidence on that score is liable to be rejected. The judgment and decree of the trial court is not a result of the appreciation of the pleadings and evidences in their correct perspective and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant, to support her argument, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217 (Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd and others), (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 489 ( Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others), 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4725 (J.Prabakaran and Another Vs. S.Babujan and others).
14.The learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and decree of the trial Court and further contended that the plaintiff's own brother who have also sold B schedule suit property under the Ex.A14 Sale Deed did not turn up to contest the matter and therefore, it is evident that the sale deed has been accepted by them and therefore, did not appear to contest the matter. The plaintiff's brother did not even appear as witness on the side of the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff had withdrawn his consent to sell the A schedule property and to prove that there was another separate sale agreement receipt under which the property was agreed to be sold for Rs.20,00,000/-. 18/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 The plaintiff's case was therefore supported by none, other than the plaintiff himself.
(14.1).The plaintiff's own evidence leads to an undeniable fact, that there was an intention to sell the A schedule properties to 4 th defendant and there was an agreement in place to sell in this regard. Having admitted and not denied the fact that there was an intention to sell, the evidence led by the plaintiff and the evidence of defendants would go to show that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the plaintiff later changed his mind and was unwilling to sell. The plaintiff's evidence would prove that he was usually residing in Salem from 1998 and only made occasional visits to Namakkal, which supports the contention of the defendants that there was an intention to sell and that led to execution of sale agreement, execution of power of attorney and ultimately culminated in the sale of the property.
(14.2). The plaintiff's own evidence would show that he has admitted signatures in the sale agreement receipt, power of attorney, promissory note, deposit of title deeds. Having admitted the signature and never having taken a stand that signatures were obtained on empty papers, the entire burden of proving that the contents of the documents do not bind the plaintiff is upon 19/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 him to prove, which he miserably failed to do. The plaintiff failed to produce the alleged sale agreement receipt evidencing sale agreement to sell the A schedule properties alone for Rs.20,00,000/- and the tearing of it later and ultimately did not lead any oral evidence to prove that there was any such alleged agreement between the plaintiff and the 4th defendant and therefore failed to prove execution of a token receipt and its subsequent cancellation, that has been claimed to be the reason for leaving the Power of Attorney as it is without cancelling and that there was an understanding that the B schedule properties alone would have to be sold.
(14.3).The plaintiff admitted execution of Power of Attorney and the contents of the Power of Attorney. The Power of Attorney contains specific recital regarding the sale agreement receipt in favour of the 4th defendant and intention to sell A schedule suit properties as well. The plaintiff having admitted the power of attorney, the contents contained therein, the plaintiff as the Principal is bound by the act of the Agent, as if the sale deed was executed by the Plaintiff himself in favour of the defendants 6 and 7. The plaintiff failed to prove that there was no sale consideration passed under the sale deed. The defendants 6 and 7 have proved the payment of Rs.3 Lakhs to Shriram Investment and the Managing Partner of the Shriram Investment was 20/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 examined as DW2, to prove that the Plaintiff had borrowed Rs. 5 Lakhs as Loan and that he had been paying interest, and on his behalf an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by 4th defendant on behalf of the plaintiff and the day dairy has been marked as document and also the discharge receipt issued by Shriram Investment to prove that 4th defendant has paid the Rs.3 Lakhs Loan amount. Further, DW1, DW3 and DW4 who are witnesses and scribe of promissory note and its discharge for the Loan amount of Rs.4 Lakh borrowed by plaintiff from Muthusamy by depositing Title Deeds as mortgage for obtaining such loan. The defendants having proved the borrowal of loan by plaintiff from the Shriram Investment and Muthusamy and also its discharge, the entire burden shifted on to the plaintiff to disprove by evidence, but he miserably failed to.
(14.4). The power agent did not receive any sale consideration under the agreement and the entire consideration was paid towards discharge of loan borrowed by the plaintiff and his brothers. The power agent cannot be said to have executed the sale with any other malafide intention, except for the fact of acting on behalf of the Principal in accordance with the terms of the power of attorney. The plaintiff is always aware of the intentions of the 6 th and 7th defendants to buy the properties. The plaintiff did not act prudently to 21/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 prove that the plaintiff had not intended to sell the property to third parties. The plaintiff did not cancel the power of attorney till the execution of sale deed. This proves that the 6th and 7th defendants are Bonafide purchasers in good faith as they were all along represented by the power agent and the plaintiff that the A schedule property is intended to be sold and that is how the sale deed came to be executed. The plaintiff failed to prove that there was an oral agreement to not act on the basis of the power of attorney in respect of his A schedule property. Even otherwise, any pleading contrary to recitals no evidence can be let in.
(14.5). The plaintiff in his Power of Attorney cancellation notice does not refer to any previous cancellation or agreement for cancellation and for the very first time cancels the power of attorney, long after the execution of sale deed by his agent. The plaintiff did not make his worker Mr.Mari @ Mariappan appear as witness to prove that he was dispossessed on 27.07.2007 and instead a third party PW2, who is not stated in the pleadings or proof affidavit. The entire consideration for the sale deed was towards discharge of loan including the loan availed by the plaintiff and that has been proved by the 6th and 7th defendants. The witness and scribe of all documents prove that the loan has been discharged.
22/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 (14.6).The Registration Act (sections 28, 64, 65 and 66) shows that it was an intention of the legislature that it should be sufficient that the registration be made in the place where some portion of the property is situated, leaving it to the Sub-Registrar and the Registrar to take such further action as may be necessary under the provisions of the Act. The Sub- Registrar being satisfied has registered the sale deed. The plea of plaintiff may not be of any substance that his property has been registered in Joint 1 Sub-Registrar and not Joint II Sub-Registrar, because C schedule property gives jurisdiction to Joint I Sub Registrar to register the Sale Deed. Further, the plaintiff having admitted to executing Power of Attorney in favour of the 5th defendant Power Agent, who steps into the shoes of the plaintiff and the act binds the plaintiff, the plea of invalidity of registration cannot be taken by the plaintiff, as the maxim "memo allegans turpitudinen suam est audiendus"
comes into effect i.e. no one alleging his own baseness ought to be heard. The possession of 6th and 7th defendants under the sale deed cannot be disturbed in view of the maxim "pari delicto potior est conditio poossidentis" i.e. in equal fault the condition of the possessor is more favourable. Further, section 32 of the Registration Act permits power agent to present documents for registration, whereby 5th defendant acting as Power Agent of Plaintiff had 23/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 power to present the sale deed for registration and therefore 6th and 7th defendants have made a prudent purchase. The 5th defendant Power Agent on the basis of the power of attorney has sold the properties on behalf of the principal/plaintiff to 6th and 7th defendants. Therefore, prima facie, the sale deed is valid in the eye of law and binds the plaintiff on whose behalf the power agent has entered into the sale transaction. The plaintiff has only sought the relief to declare the document as null and void which amounts to cancelling the duly executed sale deed. Section 226 of the Contract Act deals with Enforcement and consequences of agent's contracts, and states that Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person. The advantage of a third party to a document to file a suit to declare a document as null and void on the ground of fraud or collusion is not available to a party to the document either directly or through his power of attorney unless the power of attorney deed itself alleged to be a fraudulent and concocted document. In the former case, it is suffice for the third party to seek a declaratory relief however in the latter case, if any sale deed executed by the plaintiff or his power of attorney is challenged, the deed duly registered ought to be cancelled and it is a pre-requisite to nullify the 24/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 earlier transfer of property. In this case also, the plaintiff is party to the sale deed since it was executed by his power agent when the power of attorney deed was in force. If the plaintiff was aggrieved by the conduct of their agent and want to undo the act of their agent, they have to necessarily seek the relief to cancel the sale deed.
(14.7).The Power of Attorney executed in the present case is a Specific Power of Attorney and not a General Power. The Plaintiff and his brothers themselves identified the purchasers and finalized the sale consideration under a Sale Agreement/Receipt. The agent had no authority to find a purchaser, fix the sale price, or negotiate terms. Thus, there was no occasion or scope for the agent to act beyond the authority or to commit any fraud or deceive against the Plaintiff. In fact, the sale consideration under the registered Sale Deed is identical to the consideration fixed in the earlier Sale Agreement. The sole purpose of executing the Power of Attorney was to enable formal execution and registration of the Sale Deed, and the agent acted strictly within that limited scope. All key commercial decisions with respect to identifying the buyer, fixing the sale consideration, and determining the mode of payment were concluded by the Plaintiff and his brothers themselves. Since the purchasers paid the consideration directly towards the 25/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 Plaintiff's outstanding debts, no funds were routed through the agent. Therefore, the agent was never required to maintain accounts or produce documents under Section 213 (agent's duty to render accounts) or Section 218 (agent's duty to pay sums received) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
(14.8). The only role of the agent under the Power of Attorney was to present the documents for execution and registration of the Sale Deed. Upon completion of the sale and registration, the agency automatically comes to an end in accordance with Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Since the purpose of the agency had been fulfilled, the Principal (Plaintiff) could not revoke or terminate the agency thereafter, and Section 203 does not apply. Any subsequent notice of cancellation issued by the Principal has no legal effect and cannot invalidate the sale already completed by the agent under a valid authority.The recitals in the Power of Attorney deed are specific and clear:
(i) They identify the person to whom the sale was to be made;
(ii) They reference the Sale Agreement/Receipt, which fixed the price for the properties;26/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
(iii) They authorize sale only of properties covered under the Sale Agreement.
Accordingly, evidence cannot be led contrary to these admitted recitals, by virtue of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Once execution of the Power of Attorney is admitted, a suit challenging the Sale Deed on the ground that the agent authority had been withdrawn orally is not maintainable in law.
(14.9).The Power of Attorney being specific in nature and having achieved its intended purpose, cannot be cancelled or revoked retrospectively based on mere allegations. The sale binds the Principal (Plaintiff), and third party rights have been lawfully created in favour of the Purchasers (Defendants 6 and 7). Thus, the bona fide purchasers cannot be prejudiced by any subsequent dispute between the Principal and his agent. The entire sale consideration has been paid, and possession has been delivered to the purchasers. Hence, under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed on the ground that the agent acted without authority is not maintainable. Where third party rights have been created, cancellation cannot be sought based on an alleged oral revocation of agency, 27/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 especially when a valid and subsisting Power of Attorney existed at the time of execution of the Sale Deed. The Sale Deed binds the Principal as if executed by himself. Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the only remedy available to a seller for unpaid consideration under Section 55(b) is to claim the unpaid portion. In the present case, the sale consideration was duly paid to creditors of the plaintiff and in such circumstances, even the question of partial/unpaid payment of consideration as under section 55(b) will not arise. The transfer of ownership is complete and valid upon execution and registration of the Sale Deed. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Purchasers have acquired absolute and indefeasible title, and the Principal cannot attempt to cancel the Sale Deed merely by alleging an oral understanding inconsistent with the written and admitted documents.
(14.10).The Purchasers duly verified the Power of Attorney before purchasing the property, and only after satisfying themselves about its validity, the sale was executed and registered. The authority of the agent under the Power of Attorney has not been shown to be disputed or invalid at the relevant time. Moreover, the Sale Deed consideration of Rs. 22 Lakhs was agreed, of which, only Rs.7 Lakhs pertaining to the Plaintiff's share is disputed. No evidence has been produced to explain how the original title 28/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 documents came into the Purchasers' possession without the Plaintiff's knowledge. The Plaintiff did not issue any notice to his brothers, the purchasers, or the agent seeking return of the documents, thereby confirming voluntary delivery of title deeds after at the time of execution of sale deed. The brothers (D1 and D2), who jointly executed the sale agreement and Power of Attorney with the plaintiff, have not appeared to contest the proceedings. Their silence and non-contestation amount to an implied acceptance of the validity of the Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deed. If indeed the plaintiff had withdrawn his intention to sell as alleged, given the admitted cordial relationship among the brothers (as seen from PW2's evidence), they would have supported the plaintiff's case and testified accordingly. The absence of any such evidence indicates that there was a continuous, unanimous consensus towards the sale. The plaintiff's failure to summon 1st and 2nd defendants as witnesses is fatal, and under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference must be drawn against the plaintiff. Therefore, the power of attorney sale is valid, binding, and the rights accrued to D6 and D7 are undeniable and cannot be unsettled by a vexatious suit. The sale deed in favour of 6th and 7th is admitted and registered. 6th and 7th are in undisputed possession of the A, and B schedule properties, and the original title documents are also in their possession. Voluntary handing over 29/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 of possession and title deeds post-sale, evidenced by possession with 6th and 7th defendants, negates any claim of forcible dispossession or illegal sale. The plaintiff has not produced any credible evidence to show that the intention to sell was ever withdrawn. Documentary evidence (Exs, B9, B13, B14. B24/A14) and the consistent evidence of DWI to DW5 firmly establish that the sale was voluntary and executed pursuant to the Power of Attorney. Hence, any contrary allegation by the plaintiff is merely an afterthought and unsustainable in law.
(14.11).The plaintiff admitted the execution of the Power of Attorney (Ex. A9), the signature in the promissory note (Ex. B12) and deposit of title deeds (Exs. B10 and B11), the Sale agreement receipt (Exs. B13 and B14). These admissions establish that the plaintiff intended to sell the properties and authorized 5th defendant to complete the sale. The defendants proved payment of consideration through the Discharge of Rs.3 Lakhs loan from Shriram Investment (DW2) and Rs.4 Lakhs loan from Muthusamy (DW3, DW4). The plaintiff has led no contrary evidence. No documents to show that the loans were not availed by plaintiff or otherwise repaid by him. Further, no witnesses to disprove the loan transactions. In law, burden shifts to plaintiff (Sections 101 and 102, Evidence Act), and he has failed to discharge it. Thus, 30/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 the plea that the sale deed is null and void collapses completely. The inclusion of C schedule property in the sale deed does not render the sale invalid. The Power of Attorney authorize sale of A and B schedule properties. Registration before Joint I Sub Registrar is valid under Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, because C schedule property was within that jurisdiction. Sale and resale of the C schedule property on the same day does not vitiate the transaction in the absence of fraud or collusion. Purchasers (6th and 7th defendants) acted bona fide and their titles cannot be questioned merely based on technical objections. No evidence has been led to show that any party lacked the right to sell or buy C schedule property. The Supreme Court Judgment in Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar. (2022) 18 SCC 489, and Madras High Court Judgment in J. Prabakaran v. S. Babujan, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4725, relied by the plaintiff, deal with cases where it is held that the power agent sold property without passing of consideration. However, in the present case, the consideration was paid towards the discharge of debts. Witnesses DW2 to DW5 and documents (Exs. B10, B11, B12, B25) prove passing of consideration beyond reasonable doubt. Also, no fraud, coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation has been pleaded or proved by the plaintiff. Thus, the cited judgments are distinguishable on facts and do not apply. Further, Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, 31/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 dealing with cancellation of void/voidable documents, is not attracted because the sale deed is neither void nor voidable. It is a valid, lawful, and binding transfer executed by a duly authorized agent under an unrevoked Power of Attorney.
15.Further, the learned counsel for the respondents, to support his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 513 (V.Ravikumar Vs. S.Kumar) and thus pleaded to dismiss the appeal suits.
16.The following points arise for determination in the appeal suits.
1.Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 is entitled for declaration that the sale transaction of suit “A” schedule of properties in the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 registered as Doct.No.1533 of 2005 Joint – I, Sub Registrar, Namakkal?
2.Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 is entitled for recovery of possession of “A” schedule properties from the 6th and 7th defendants?
32/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
3.Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 is entitled to recover the title deeds in respect of “A” schedule properties from the 6th and 7th defendants and entitled for permanent injunction against the 6th and 7th defendants?
4.Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.43 of 2009 is entitled for Permanent injunction with regard to the plaint schedule properties as prayed for?
5.Whether the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 is not supported by consideration and became void?
6.Whether the sale deed with respect to A & B schedule properties registered before the Joint Sub Registrar – I, Namakkal is vitiated by fraud of registration?
7.To what relief the parties are entitled?
17.I have considered the matter in the light of the submission made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
18.On perusal of the materials available on record, the following facts are clear and admitted. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.115 of 2007 are brothers. The plaintiff was the owner of the “A” schedule 33/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 property. He had purchased them through the three sale deeds dated 20.09.1995, 29.09.2003 and 20.08.2004 evidenced as Exs.A1, A2 and A3 respectively. The defendants 1 to 3 were the owners of “B” schedule property. They have purchased through sale deeds dated 16.07.2001, 20.09.1995, 20.08.2003 and 09.07.2004 evidenced as Exs.A4 to A8 respectively.
19.The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 jointly executed sale agreement receipt on 18.05.2005 in favour of the 4th defendant for the sale of A and B scheduled properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/- and received an advance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- which is evidenced as Exs.B13 and B14. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 executed general power of attorney Ex.A9 on 30.06.2005 thereby appointing the 5th defendant as power agent to sell the suit properties in pursuance of the sale agreement receipt Ex.B13.
20.The Power agent the 5th defendant executed a sale deed in favour of 6th and 7th defendants on 11.07.2005 with the consent of the 4th defendant. He initially agreed to purchase the property by executing Ex.B13. These facts are not disputed by both the parties and admitted by them. 34/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
21.Now the case of the appellant is that the appellant being owner of A schedule properties not willing to sell the property and cancel the general Power of Attorney deed dated 30.06.2005 by issuing notice to the 5th defendant on 04.08.2006 which is evidenced as Ex.A10. Besides contended that the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 is not supported by consideration and therefore, it is void.
22.Another contention is, the properties in A and B schedule are situated at the jurisdiction of Joint Sub Registrar II, Namakkal, but the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 was registered before the Joint Sub Registrar I, Namakkal by defrauding the appellant. To support the argument, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others reported in (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 489, and J.Prabakaran and another Vs. S.Babujan and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4725.
23.It is clear from the records that the appellant /plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 does not at all dispute the execution of General Power of Attorney dated 30.06.2005 evidenced as Ex.A9. Further, as it is clear from the 35/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 records that on the strength of the general Power of Attorney conferred upon the 5th defendant, he executed a sale deed in favour of 6th and 7th defendants, which is evidenced as Ex.A14.
24.On perusal of evidence on record and the sale deed Ex.A14, which is clear that power agent the 5th defendant did not receive any sale consideration and the entire consideration was paid towards discharge of loan borrowed by the plaintiff and his brothers. On perusal of general Power of Attorney Ex.A9 dated 30.06.2005, there is clear recitals in the power of attorney to sell the properties with reference to the sale agreement receipt for the price fixed in pursuance of Ex.B13. In the present case, to support the contention of cancellation of power by the appellant/plaintiff, he relied upon the notice sent to the 5th defendant through his counsel on 04.08.2006 evidenced as Ex.A10. Though the appellant/plaintiff contended that immediately within two or three days of execution of power of Attorney deed dated 30.06.2005, the plaintiff /appellant changed his mind not to sell the properties described in the A schedule properties of the plaint and proposed to revoke the power of attorney deed and his brothers promised him that the power of attorney agent, the 5th defendant would not execute any sale deed 36/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 with reference to A schedule properties and requested the plaintiff not to cancel the power of attorney deed. Since the power of attorney being a joint deed of power of attorney, if cancelled, the entire power would stand cancelled resulting in great hardship to the defendants 1 to 3 in dealing with the properties described in B schedule property of the plaint is not supported by any material on records. The first evidence to expose the appellant/plaintiff’s intention to cancel the power of attorney is Ex.A10 dated 04.08.2006 advocate notice.
25.On perusal of Ex.A10 dated 04.08.2006, there is no mentioning of oral request made by the 5th defendant and the defendants 1 to 3 not to cancel the power of attorney. It is only stated that the power of attorney executed by the appellant/plaintiff is cancelled by this notice. For better appreciation, it is reproduced hereunder:
nehl;o!;
ehkf;fy; khtl;lk; jpUr;br';nfhL jhY}f;fh vsr;rpghisak; tHp ,Yg;gpyp m";ry; Nhpg;gl;o bjd;idku njhl;lj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; br';nfhl ft[z;lh; Fkhuh;
S.bghd;Drhkp Mfpa c';fSf;F
ehkf;fy; tl;lk; bfhrtk;gl;oapy; ,Uf;Fk;
37/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm )
A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
vk;/nf/bt';fl$yk; Fkhuh; nf/tp/mHnfrd; jfty; bgw;w ehkf;fy; ml;tnfl; tp./uF. M.Com., B.L., bjhptpg;gjhtJ ,g;gt[k; vd; fl;rpfhuUk; kw;Wk; mtuJ rnfhjuh;fshd nf/tp/uhkfpUc;&zd;. nf/tp/fnzrd;. nf/tp/b$agpufh!;
Mfpnahh;fs; v!;/bghd;Drhkp Mfpa c';fs; bgaUf;F brd;w 30/06/2005 njjpapl;L xU b$duy[[; gth; gj;jpuk; vGjp bfhLj;Js;sdh;/ ic& gj;jpuk; MdJ ehkf;fy; ,iz rhh; gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; 4 g[j;jfk; 2005 k; tUlj;jpa 284 vz;zhf gjpthfpa[s;sJ/ ,dpa[k; vd; fl;rpfhuh; j';fs; gth; Vb$z;l;lhf ,Ug;gij tpUk;ghjjhy; vd; fl;rpfhuh;
brd;w 30/06/2005y; j';fs; bgaUf;F
bfhLj;j b$duy; gth; Mg; Ml;lhh;dpia ,e;j
mwp[tpg;g[ K:yk; uj;J bra;Jtpl;lhh;/ ,dp eP';fs; vd;
fl;rpfhuUf;fhf ahbjhU ifbaGj;J bra;at[k; chpikapy;iy/ ,dp eP';fs; vd; fl;rpfhuUf;fhf ic& gj;jpuk; ncwhjhtpy; ve;j ifbaGj;J bra;jhYk; mg;gj;jpuk; vd; fl;rpfhuiu bghWj;J bry;yj;jf;fjy;y/ ehkf;fy; ml;tnfl;
04/08/2006
26.On fact, it is admitted that the power of attorney the 5th defendant executed a sale deed in favour of 6th and 7th defendants on 11.07.2005 evidenced as Ex.A14, before the cancellation. The above fact shows that the appellant/plaintiff is making an attempt to unsettle the sale on the plea that the power of attorney granted on 30.06.2005 (Ex.A9) was intended to be cancelled immediately within two or three days of execution of power of 38/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 attorney which is not supported by any material on record. Hence, it does not affect the prior conveyances made on the strength of the general power conferred on the 5th defendant. Further, there is no contention raised on the side of the appellant/plaintiff that the power of attorney Ex.A9 dated 30.06.2005 was executed by the reason of a fraud or coercion employed on the executor. Therefore, the power holder having exercised the authority conferred to convey the properties in the name of purchasers i.e. 6th and 7th defendants, the cancellation of power of Attorney by subsequent advocate notice Ex.A10 dated 04.08.2006, has no effect on the conveyance carried out under the valid power conferred on 30.06.2005. In this regard, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents upon the judgment of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.Ravikumar Vs. S.Kumar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 513 is relevant. The principle stated therein para – 8 runs as follows:
“ 8.. . . . . . . . We are clear in our minds that the cancellation does not affect the prior conveyances made which are clearly on the strength of the power conferred on the appellant. There is no contention raised as to the power of attorney having not conferred the power to enter into conveyances or that such power of attorney was executed by reason of a fraud or coercion employed on the executant. 39/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 The power holder having exercised the authority conferred; to convey the properties in the name of the purchasers,the cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred. Nor would it confer the person who executed the power of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent document, to challenge the valid exercise of the power when it existed.” Therefore, the argument placed by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in this regard has no merit.
27.I have considered another argument that the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 Ex.A14 is not supported by consideration. I have gone through the evidence on record Ex.A14 sale deed, where, passing of consideration is described in detail and supported by the other evidence. For better appreciation, it is reproduced hereunder:
“nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j 4 egh; ehkf;fy; tl;lk;
nkhfDhh; lt[d; 53D2 ehkf;fy; nuhl;oy; epUtg;gl;loUf;Fk;
fhe;jkiy fpuol; fhh;g;gnuc&dpy; bgw;wpUe;j (fld;
be/247-2004) fld; bjhif U:/2.00.000/00j;ij nkw;go
gth; bfhLj;j egUf;fhf nkw;go (uhkyp';fk; nkw;go
epWtdj;jpw;F nkw;go fld; bjhifia fl;oj; jPh;j;jJ
mjw;fhf Mjut[ bgw;W ,e;j fpiuag;gj;jpw;F Mjuthf
j';fs; trk; xg;gilj;j tifapy; bry;yhdJ U:/2.00.000/00 40/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 ,Jt[k;/ 2/nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j 2 egh; ehkf;fy; tl;lk;.
nkhfDhh; lt[d; 58C ehkf;fy; nuhl;oy;
epWtg;gl;oUf;Fk; _uhk; ,z;bt!;l;bkz;l;!py; bgw;wpUe;j
(fld; be/481-2005) fld; bjhif U:/3.00.000/00 j;ij
nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j egUf;fhf nkw;go uhkyp';fk;
nkw;go epWtdj;jpw;F nkw;go fld; bjhifia fl;oj;
jPh;j;J mjw;fhf Mjut[ bgw;w ,e;j fpiuag;gj;jpuj;jpw;F Mjuthf j';fs; trk; xg;gilj;j tifapy; bry;yhdJ U:/3.00.000/00 ,Jt[k;/ 3/ nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j 1 egh; ehkf;fy; tl;lk;
(nkhfDhh; lt[d; 58C ehkf;fy; nuhl;oy; epWtg;gl;oUf;Fk; rz;Kfh igdhd;!py; bgw;wpUe;j (fld; be/558-2004) fld;
bjhif U:/2.00.000/00j;ij nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j egUf;fhf nkw;go uhkyp';fk; nkw;go epWtdj;jpw;F nkw;go fld; bjhifia fl;oj;jPh;j;J mjw;fhf Mjut[ bgw;W ,e;j fpiuag;gj;jpuj;jpw;F Mjuthf j';fs; trk;
xg;gilj;j tifapy; bry;yhdJ U:/2.00.000-? ,Jt[k;/ 4/nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j 3. 4 egh;fs; ehkf;fy;
fpis yl;Rkp tpyh!; t';fpapy; mry; Mtz vz;fs;/ 1533-2003. 2499-95 cs;s gj;jpu';fis xg;gilj;J nkw;go t';fpapy; th';fpa fld; bjhif U:/3.00.000/00 nkw;go fld; bjhif U:/3.00.000 j;ij nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j egh;fSf;fhf nkw;go uhkyp';fk; nkw;go t';fpf;F brYj;jp jf;f ,urPJ bgw;W j';fs; trk; xg;gilj;j tifapy;
bry;yhdJ U:/3.00.000-?/ 5/nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j 1 egh; ehkf;fy; fpis fU:h;
itc&;ah t';fpapy; mry; Mtz vz;/2497-95 cs;s
41/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm )
A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
gj;jpuj;ij xg;gilj;J nkw;go t';fpapy; th';fpa fld;
bjhif U:/2.00.000/00 nkw;go fld; bjhif U:/2.00.000/00
nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j egh;fSf;fhf nkw;go uhkyp';fk;
nkw;go t';fpf;F brYj;jp jf;f ,urPJ bgw;W j';fs;
trk; xg;gilj;j tifapy; bry;yhdJ U:/2.00.000/00
,Jt[k;/ nknyfz;l mapl;l';fspy; Toa fld; bjhif
U:.12.00.000/00j;ij gth; bfhLj;j egh;fSf;fhf nkw;go
uhkyp';fk; fl;ol fld; bjhiffis nkw;go
uhkyp';fj;jplk; eP';fns brYj;jp nkw;go uhkyp';fj;jplk;
cs;s ,urPJ mry; Mtz';fis eP';fns jpUk;g bgw;W
,e;j fpiuag;gj;jpuj;jpw;F Mjuthf itj;Jf;bfhs;Sk;go
rhl;Ljy; bra;jJ U:/12.00.000/00
6/nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j 2 egh; ehkf;fy; tl;lk;.
,uhrpghisak; fpuhkk;. f!;gh ,uhrpghisaj;jpy;
FoapUf;Fk; tPug;gft[z;lh; mth;fs; Fkhuh;
Kj;Jrhkpft[z;lhplk; mth; Mtz vz;fs;. 1891-2003. 1856- 2004. 2498-95 cs;s gj;jpu';fis brd;w 14/11/2004k;
njjpapy; (MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS)
xg;gilj;J nkw;goahhplk; th';fpa fld; bjhif
U:/4.00.000./00 nkw;go fld; bjhif U:/3.00.000/00j;ij
nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j egh;fSf;fhf eP';fns nkw;goahUf;F brYj;jp jf;f ,urPJ bgw;W nkw;goahhplkpUe;J mry;
Mtz';fis jpUk;g bgw;Wf; bfhs;Sk;go eh';fs;
c';fsplk; rhl;Ljy; bra;jJ U:/4.00.000/00 ,Jt[k;/ 7/nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j 1 egh; jpUr;br';nfhL tl;lk;. fhe;jp Mrpukk; m";ry;. br';fy;fhL vy;yg;
ghisaj;jpy; FoapUf;Fk; ey;y Fkuf; ft[z;lh; mth;fs;
Fkhuh; Kj;Jrhkp mth;fsplk; mry; Mtz vz;/2843-2001
cs;s gj;jpuj;ij brd;w 07/06/2004k; njjpapy;
(MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS) xg;gilj;J
42/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm )
A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014
nkw;goahhplk; th';fpa fld; bjhif U:/3.00.000/00 nkw;go fld; bjhif U:/3.00.000/00j;ij nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j egh;fSf;fhf eP';fns nkw;goahUf;F brYj;jp jf;f ,urPJ bgw;W nkw;goahhplkpUe;J mry; Mtz';fis jpUk;g bgw;Wf; bfhs;Sk;go eh';fs; c';fsplk; rhl;Ljy; bra;jJ U:/3.00.000/00 ,Jt[k;/ 8/nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j 4 egh; jpUr;br';nfhL tl;lk;. fhe;jp Mrpukk; m";ry; br';fy;fhL vy;yg;ghisaj;jpy; FoapUf;Fk; ey;yf;Fkuft[z;lh; mth;fs; Fkhuh; bry;yKj;J mth;fsplk; mry; Mtz vz;/1616-2004 cs;s gj;jpuj;ij brd;w 12/09/2004k; njjpapy;
(MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS) xg;gilj;J nkw;goahhplk; th';fpa fld; bjhif U:/3.00.000/00 nkw;go fld; bjhif U:/3.00.000/00j;ij nkw;go gth; bfhLj;j egh;fSf;fhf eP';fns nkw;goahUf;F brYj;jp jf;f ,urPJ bgw;W nkw;goahhplkpUe;J mry; Mtz';fis jpUk;g bgw;Wf; bfhs;Sk;go eh';fs; c';fsplk; rhl;Ljy; bra;jJ U:/3.00.000/00 ,Jt[k;/””
28.In view of the above fact, the argument that the sale deed is not supported by consideration has no merit and the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel in the Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others reported in (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 489 is not factually applicable in the instant case.
29.The non-payment or inadequacy of sale consideration has been 43/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 573, wherein, in para 36 to 38, the effect of non payment or inadequacy of sale consideration has been dealt with. For better appreciation, it is reproduced hereunder:
“35. Even if the findings recorded by the High Court that the plaintiff had paid only Rs. 500 to defendant No. 2 as sale consideration and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,500 which was shown to have been paid before the execution of the deed was, in fact, not paid, the sale deed would not, for that reason, become invalid on account of the provisions contained in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act which provide as under:
54. "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised.
Such a transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable 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 instrument.
In the case of tangible immoveable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
44/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs; in possession of the property.
A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
36. The definition indicates that in order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another, i.e., transfer of all rights and interests in the properties which are possessed by that person are transferred by him to another person. The transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property or else it would not be a sale. The definition further says that the transfer of ownership has to be for a "price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. The words "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised" indicate that actual payment of whole of the price at the time of the execution of sale deed is not sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter registered, if the 45/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 property is of the value of more than Rs. 100/-, the sale would be complete.
37. There is a catena of decisions of various High Courts in which it has been held that even if the whole of the price is not paid, the transaction of sale will take effect and the title would pass under that transaction. To cite only a few, in Gyatri Prasad v. Board of Revenue and Ors. (1973) Allahabad Law Journal 412, it was held that non-payment of a portion of the sale price would not effect validity of sale. It was observed that part payment of consideration by vendee itself proved the intention to pay the remaining amount of sale price. To the same effect is the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sukaloo and Anr. v. Punau .
38. The real test is the intention of the parties. In order to constitute a "sale", the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property and they must also intend that the price would be paid either in presenti or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recital in the sale deed, conduct of the parties and the evidence on record.”
30.Therefore, by the operation of Section 55 (4) (b) transfer of property 46/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 Act, a seller has the first charge on the property that was passed on to the buyers. The sale deed would not for that reason become invalid on that ground. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior counsel in this regard has no merit.
31.Further argument that the properties are within the territorial jurisdiction of Joint Sub Registrar No.II, Namakkal. But it was registered before the Joint Sub Registrar I Namakkal, who has no jurisdiction with respect to A and B schedule properties. Therefore, the sale deed became invalid has also no merit. In view of the provisions of Sections 28, 64, 65 and 66 of the Registration Act, the provisions permits to register in the place where some portion of the property is situated leaving it to the Sub Registrar and the Registrar to take such further action as may be necessary under the provisions of the Act. In this case, on fact, one of the C schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of Joint Sub Registrar I, Namakkal. Therefore, the properties along with A, B, C schedule were registered at the office of Joint Sub Registrar I, Namakkal. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard also has no merit.
32.In the present case, the fact clearly establish that a complete and 47/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 formidable sale deed was executed by the 5th defendant in favour of 6th& 7th defendants and the title of the property passed to the 6th and 7th defendants. The findings recorded by the trial Court is sustainable one. There is no ground for interference. I find no merit in these two appeals.
33.In view of the above, the plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 is not entitled for declaration with respect to the sale deed dated 11.07.2005 and not entitled for return of original title deeds besides not entitled for permanent injunction. The sale deed is supported by consideration, cancellation of power of attorney deed subsequent to the execution of sale deed has no effect upon the sale deed executed by the power agent. Thus, all the issues in O.S.No.115 of 2007 concerned are answered negatively and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.43 of 2009/ 6th and 7th respondents in the appeal are entitled for permanent injunction and thus, the above issues are answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal suits are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, 48/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Index/Internet: Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No 30.04.2025
sms
To
1.The Additional District Court, Namakkal.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section High Court, Madras. 49/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm ) A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sms A.S.Nos.154 & 155 of 2014 30.04.2025 50/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 01:15:18 pm )