Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(9)The Trial Court examined the issue as to the truth and validity of the Power of Attorney Deed alleged to have been executed by the husband of the 1st plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant. After examining the document Ex.B3 dated 06.09.1989, the Trial Court held that the burden lies on plaintiffs to prove the said Power of Attorney as fabricated or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis impersonated or forged. Since the plaintiffs who alleged fraud and forgery, have failed to establish their case, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration with regard to the Power of Attorney Deed. However, the Trial Court found that late Chengaiah Naidu / 1st plaintiff 's husband did not give any power to the 1st defendant to sell away the suit property as a whole to any third party as the Power of Attorney only authorised the power agent to obtain permission to form a layout and to sell the approved plots to third parties and nothing more. Further, the Trial Court also examined the validity of the Sale Deed. On the admitted facts. Though the Sale Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant was on 07.06.1990, it was presented for registration only on 26.09.1990 and it was registered subsequently on 10.10.1990. Since it is admitted that Chengaiah Naidu died on 16.06.1990, the Trial Court found that the Sale Deed which was presented for registration after the death of the principal, namely, Chengaiah Naidu and registered subsequently, is invalid and it would not create any right in favour of the transferee. Relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1987 [1] MLJ 248 [Sekar Mudaliar V. Shajathi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Bi], the Trial Court held that the 1st defendant exceeded his power while executing the document – Ex.A5 in favour of the appellant herein, particularly after the death of the principal. The 2nd defendant/appellant raised an issue regarding limitation by stating that the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the Sale Deed and that the suit which was filed on 05.07.2006, is barred by limitation. The said issue was also considered by the Trial Court and held that the plaintiffs came to know about the Power of Attorney Deed and the Sale Deed only when they applied for an Encumbrance Certificate and that therefore, the suit filed on 05.07.2006 is well in time. After finding that the Sale Deed was registered only after the death of the principal, the Trial Court described the sale transaction as a nullity so as to bind the plaintiffs in any manner. Therefore, the Trial Court while declining to grant the relief of declaration as to the nullity of the Power of Attorney Deed, granted a decree declaring the Sale Deed dated 07.06.1990 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(15)In the present context, it is relevant to refer the judgment of this Court in the case of Sekar Mudaliar's case reported in 1987 [1] MLJ 248 [cited supra]. Going by the facts of this case, a Settlement Deed which was executed before the death of principal but presented for registration by the Power Agent after the death of settlor was held to be invalid and it would not operate to convey title in favour of settlor after the death of the settlees with reference to immovable properties dealt with therein. It is useful to refer to the following paragraphs of the said judgment which are extracted below:-

(19)It is also admitted that the document was presented for registration after the death of principal namely the husband of the 1 st plaintiff. The registration of the document was on 10.10.1990, nearly four months after the death of the 1st plaintiff's husband/principal.

(20)This Court has independently considered the provisions of the Registration Act. It is to be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Assets Reconstruction Company [India] Limited Vs. S.P.Velayutham and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online 544 has also considered the valid presentation of a document of conveyance through Power of Attorney Agent having regard to the provisions of the Registration Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

(23)The 3rd question of law is again misleading, ignoring the facts admitted.

It is well settled that the power dies with the person and therefore, the Power of Attorney agent does not have the power to represent the principal any time after his death. In this case, the principal died on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16.06.1990 and the document of sale was presented for registration on 26.09.1990. However, the Sale Deed came into existence just few days prior to the death of the principal, i.e., on 07.06.1990. It is to be seen that the Sale Deed was registered on 10.10.1990, after four months. The sequence of facts admitted also indicates that the Sale Deed has been fraudulently executed by the Power of Attorney agent in favour of his daughter/appellant/2nd defendant for a paltry sum of Rs.1 lakh. This Court is unable to consider the appellant as a bona fide purchaser and the transaction as a bona fide one and therefore, there is no question of considering the act done by the Power of Attorney agent as one in good faith. The appellant has colluded with her father to grab the property of the respondents/plaintiffs by playing fraud. Therefore, quite contrary to the terms of the Power of Attorney Deed, the 1st defendant/father of the appellant after knowing the death of the 1st plaintiff's husband / principal hurriedly executed the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant with a clear intention to defraud the plaintiffs/respondents and thereby to deprive of their legitimate rights. The 1st defendant remained exparte and he did not file a written statement even though he died long after the institution of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the suit. This Court, having regard to the relationship between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant, has no hesitation to hold that the entire transaction is fraudulent. Since fraud vitiates every solemn transaction, the appellant cannot be granted any relief.