Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Rangareddy District in O.S.No.783 of 2019 dated 06.11.2023, the defendant No.6 preferred this appeal.

11. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court failed to see that the plaintiff did not even enter the witness box to prove his title to the plaint schedule land. The Power of Attorney Holder had no authority to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial court failed to see that Ex.A1 sale deed, the title document of the plaintiff remained not proved. The trial court ought to have dismissed the suit as barred by limitation having regard to the fact that the appellant and his predecessors in title had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from 28.05.1982. The trial court ought not to have permitted PW.1 - the Power of Attorney Holder to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff without following the procedure under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice. The finding recorded by the trial court that the sale deed Ex.B3 was a fabricated document was without any basis and liable to be set aside. The trial court erred in holding that Ex.B3 sale deed was a Dr.GRR, J as_57_2024 fabricated document without even framing an issue in that regard. The court below decreed the suit contrary to the principle of law that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff had to succeed on his own strength and not on the weakness of the defendant. The judgment of the court below was based on assumptions and presumptions and not based on any legal evidence on record. The court below failed to see that Ex.A1 sale deed was a void document and did not create any right in favor of the plaintiff, as admittedly the plaintiff was a minor as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and a minor could not enter into a valid contract as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The finding recorded by the trial court that the plaintiff was dispossessed in 2019 from suit schedule property was without any basis. The plaintiff was out of possession from 28.05.1982 i.e. date of execution of Ex.B3 sale deed. The trial court ought to have seen that by virtue of Exs.B1, B2 and B3, the appellant had got title to the suit schedule property and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Vasavi Co- operative Housing Society Limited and Others 1 , on the aspect that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title. Even if the title set up by the defendants was found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited. He relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the High AIR 2014 SC 937 Dr.GRR, J as_57_2024 Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gokeda Latcharao v. Viswanadham Bhimayya 2on the aspect that a contract entered into with a minor is a nullity for want of legal competency. Except otherwise provided by statute, it is not enforceable and it does not give rise to any rights or liabilities. He also relied upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Ma Hnit and Others v. Hasim Ebrahim Meter and another3on the aspect that a contract with a minor is void and not merely voidable. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and Others 4 on the aspect that a power of attorney could not depose for principal in respect of matters of which only a principal can have personal knowledge and further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manisha Mahendra Gala and Others v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani and Others 5 on the same aspect that a power of attorney holder can only depose about the facts within his personal knowledge and not about the facts which are not within his knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the person, who he represents or about the facts that might have transpired much before he entered the scene.

14. Now the points for consideration in this appeal are:

(i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff through his GPA is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff was a minor at the time of entering into Ex.A1 and whether the said sale deed was void?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek cancellation of the registered sale deed document No.10178 of 2018 dated 24.10.2018 executed in between respondents 1 and 2 and the registered sale deed document No.3612 of 2019 dated 04.04.2019 executed by defendant No.2 in favor of defendant No.6 as null and void and not binding upon him and whether he is entitled to seek recovery of possession from defendants 1, 2 and 6 or any persons claiming through them?

23. In the present case also, the Power of Attorney Holder was speaking about Ex.A1, a registered sale deed and no personal knowledge was required to be pressed into service to establish the case of the plaintiff. As such, the suit filed by the plaintiff through his GPA is maintainable. P O I N T No.(ii):

Whether the plaintiff was a minor at the time of entering into Ex.A1 and whether the said sale deed was void?

24. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of entering into Ex.A1 and as such the sale deed document was void. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed of the plaintiff bearing document No.614 of 1982 dated 21.01.1982 registered at the Office of Sub-Registrar-I, RO, Rangareddy District. The age of the plaintiff was shown as 20 years in the said document. The said document was executed by Sri Dr.GRR, J as_57_2024 Abhyudaya Cooperative House Building Society Limited represented through its President Sri A.N.Abraham and Secretary Sri C.Sarvesham in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property bearing plot No.165 on payment of a consideration of Rs.1602/- paid by the purchaser to the Society. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that as per the Aadhar card annexed to Ex.A6, the date of birth of the plaintiff was recorded as 19.03.1967. Thus, the plaintiff was aged 15 years 3 months by the date of executing the sale deed, marked as Ex.A1. As such, the same was a void document and relied upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Ma Hnit and Others v. Hasim Ebrahim Meter and another (cited supra), wherein it was held that:

28. Thus, as seen from the above judgments, even though a minor may be disqualified to enter into a contract, such disqualification does not debar that minor from being transferee under a conveyance. Even though, a minor is incompetent to enter into a contract, no such disability attaches to him in the matter of Transfer of Property and the sale deed executed in his favor is valid and enforceable. Thus, this Court does not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the plaintiff was a minor at the time of entering into Ex.A1, the said sale deed was a void document. As such, both these points are answered in favor of the respondent - plaintiff as against the appellant - defendant No.6.