Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. For filing the said suit, the original cause of action is dated 24.03.1986 and on that day, the sale deed had been registered in the name of the plaintiff and subsequently, a portion of the property had been alienated to and in favour of one Kathiresan dated 06.01.1992. Subsequently, the first defendant had filed suit in O.S.No.2811 and the same was dismissed. On 23.04.1992, the plaintiff had levelled a criminal case before the District Crime Branch. The same was registered on 24.03.2004. The Virudhunagar Municipality had issued demand notice to the plaintiff for arrears of tax and on 15.04.2004, the defendants had attempted to trespass into the suit schedule mentioned property. Hence, the suit has been filed within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.75.70 for permanent injunction pertaining to the 'A' shcedule menionted property and Rs.4,800.50 paid towards 'B' schedule mentioned property since the 'B' schedule mentioned property is valued at Rs.64,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the 'A' schedule mentioned property and he prayed that the sale deed created by the first and second defendants in document bearing No.1632, registered on the file of Parasalai Sub Registrar Office dated 18.04.1990 and subsequently, the sale deed bearing No.1996 registered on the file of Virudhunagar Sub Registrar Office, Virudhunagar dated 29.12.1995 are null and void. Hence, the suit had been filed for the above said relief.

16. D.W.1 had adduced evidence that the plaintiff had purchased the schedule mentioned property from one Saravanamuthu Pillai and others on 04.03.1986. Further, he did not know the alienation of a portion of the property to and in favour of one Kathiresan. The plaintiff had executed a general power of attorney pertaining to his property to and in favour of one Chellakutti, the second defendant herein. On the strength of the power of attorney, the power holder, the second defendant had executed a sale deed bearing registration No.1632 of 1990, on the file of Parasalai Sub Registrar Office dated 18.04.1990. Subsequently, the sale deed had been released on 17.11.1995, after paying deficit of stamp duty.

27. The highly competent counsel appearing for the appellants submitted on the grounds of appeal that the learned Subordinate Judge had failed to see that a suit for declaration that the documents were not binding upon him whereas, the proper frame of the suit is to cancel the documents and so, the suit for declaration without the relief of cancellation of the document is not maintainable. Even otherwise, in so far as the disputed signature is concerned, it is only in the Power of Attorney document Ex.B2 and so, the question of declaration or cancellation could only be with reference to the document itself but not any other document on the basis of this disputed document Ex.B2 whereas, the first respondent has not challenged the legality or otherwise of Ex.B2 and as such, the present suit for declaration relating to the sale deeds on the basis of Ex.B2 could not be sustained. Even otherwise, in so far as the appellants are concerned, they are the purchasers of the portions of the schedule-B Properties from the second respondent herein, under two sale deeds dated 20.11.1998 respectively in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 and marked as Ex.B15 and B16, without any notice of any defect in the alleged title of the second respondent over the said properties and as such, they are the bonafide purchasers for value, without any notice and the same had been over looked by the learned Subordinate Judge. The lower appellate Court should have noticed that on 20.11.1998, when the appellants purchased their respective properties from the second respondent, and on the title deeds and documents of title produced by the second appellant before them, it was clear that the second respondent had got title over the suit properties, more particularly, in respect of the portions of the properties sold to and purchased by the appellants, on the basis of the Power of Attorney dated 06.04.1990 under Ex.B2 and hence, the appellants should be treated as bonafide purchasers alone, without any defect in the title and also without any notice. The learned Subordinate Judge should have also seen that absolutely, there was no publication made by the first respondent herein relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the Power of Attorney Ex.B2 and also the sale deed dated 18.04.1990 and 29.12.1995 and so, the appellants ought to have been held as the bonafide purchasers for value without any notice or alleged defect in the title over the properties covered under schedule-B and the failure to consider the same is totally illegal. The lower appellate Court ought to have applied the mandatory provisions contained under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act providing for the application of the said provisions, to a person purchasing the properties from the ostensible owner and so, when the sale deeds in favour of the appellants in Exs.B15 and B16 cannot be said to be invalid and the said transfer shall not be voidable on the grounds taken by the first respondent in his plaint. Moreover, the learned Subordinate Judge should have noticed that when the first respondent is challenging the sale deed dated 18.04.1990 registered with the Sub Registrar of Parasalai and again proceedings were taken and registered on 29.12.1995 on the file of the Sub Registrar of Virudhunagar, both the sale deeds were not produced by the first respondent, during the course of the trial and also in the appeal, by way of additional evidence, and so, when the documents sought to be declared as null and void were not produced before the Court and Exhibited, the very prayer itself cannot be sustainable or cannot be granted, in the absence of the production of the very documents themselves. The learned Subordinate Judge ought to have held that the suit is one to declare the sale deeds as null and void and for cancellation and hence the decree granted without the documents being produced before the Court is equally illegal. The lower appellate Court should have dismissed the appeal preferred by the first respondent herein.

29. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.Radhakrishnan appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff further submits that the first and second defendants had jointly created a forged general power of attorney with mala- fide intention to usurp the property. Knowing the same, the plaintiff had levelled a complaint before the District Crime Branch at Virudhunagar and the same was registered as Crime No.18/1992. Subsequently, the said case had been withdrawn since the first and second defendants are not prepared to claim any civil rights over the plaintiff's property any further. The first defendant had filed a title suit in O.S.No.287 of 1991 and claimed ownership over the plaintiff's property and the same was dismissed. The highly competent counsel further submits that on the strength of forged general power of attorney, the second defendant had executed a sale deed to and in favour of the first defendant dated 18.04.1990. Hence, the plaintiff sought remedy to cancel the said forged document bearing No.1632, dated 18.04.1990, on the file of Sub Registrar, Parasalai. Subsequently, the same was re-registered as document No.1996, dated 29.12.1995. On the strength of this forged document, the first defendant had attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's property on 15.04.2004. Therefore, the permanent injunction is absolute necessary to the plaintiff in order to safeguard his civil rights over the schedule mentioned property. The same was granted by the first appellate Court, after well considering the evidence on both sides and on perusing the exhibits marked by them and as such, there is no lacuna or shortcomings or lapse or any infirmity in the decree and judgment passed in the appeal suit in A.S.No.40 of 2007, on the file of Sub Court, Virudhunagar, dated 15.12.2011. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above appeal.