Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
JAYAPRASAD B. (DIED) S/O LATE B. RAMADAS – Appellant
Versus
VAISALINI (DIED) W/O LATE B. RAMADAS – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 1109 of 2015
Decided On : 02-11-2024
(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 197 to 200 – Registration Act – Sections 32 and 33 – Partition suit – Plaintiff sought partition of property inherited from father – Trial Court granted preliminary decree; First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding ratification of sale deed by silence – Court held that Power of Attorney must be construed strictly and ratification cannot be inferred from mere silence. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 34)
(B) Ratification – Ratification may be expressed or implied; long silence can imply ratification if no valid explanation is provided – Non-examination of the plaintiff is not fatal if the burden shifts to the defendants. (Paras 32, 34)
Facts of the case: The plaintiff filed for partition of property inherited from his deceased father, claiming the property was sold without proper authority. The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff ratified the sale by his long silence.
Findings of Court: The First Appellate Court's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld, affirming that the sale deed was valid and ratified by the plaintiff's conduct.
Issues: Whether the sale deed was ratified by silence and whether the Power of Attorney was validly executed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Power of Attorney must be strictly construed and that ratification cannot be assumed from silence alone without a valid explanation.
Result: Regular Second Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 356/2009 is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint A Schedule Property into five equal shares and for allotment of 1/5 share to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the plaint A schedule property belonged to his father Ramdas and on the death of Ramdas in the year 1990, the plaint schedule property devolved upon the first defendant wife and the plaintiff & defendants 2 to 4 who are his children. The plaint schedule property is 3.02 Acres of land comprised in Re. Sy. No. 258/3 of Paddy Village in Kasaragod Taluk.
2. In the Written Statement filed by the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant contended that she sold the Plaint A schedule property. Thereupon the plaintiff impleaded the defendants 5 to 9 in the suit. The 5th defendant is the buyer of the Plaint A Schedule Property in Ext.B7 Sale Deed dated 19/07/1993 executed by the 1st defendant for herself, for the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 as their Power of Attorney holder and for the 4th defendant as her guardian on account of her minority. The defendants 6 to 9 are the assignees from the 5th defendant as per Exts.B1, B2, B3 & B6. The plaintiff amended the plaint and included a pleading that Ext.B7 Sale Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 5th defendant is illegal and void and hence subsequent sale deeds executed by the 5th defendant in favour of the defendants 6 to 9 are also void and liable to be ignored.
3. The defendants 2 to 4 supported the plaintiff and they also sought for partition and separate allotment of the shares.
4. The 5th defendant filed a Written Statement contending, inter alia, that the suit has been filed in collusion with defendants 1 to 4 to dupe and defraud other defendants; that the plaint A schedule property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and on his death it devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4; the plaintiff and the 2nd & 3rd defendants executed Ext.X1 Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1992 in favour of the 1st defendant authorizing her to deal with and sell their properties including plaint A schedule property; that since the 4th defendant was a minor the 1st defendant sold the right of the 4th defendant for valid consideration as guardian of the 4th defendant; that the Plaint A schedule property situated in a group village consisting of Paddy and Nekraje village; that both the villages are set up in the same Village Office; that there is only one Village Officer; that taking undue advantage of non mentioning of Paddy village in the general power of attorney executed by plaintiff and defendant 2 and 3, the suit has been filed to dupe and defraud the defendants 5 to 9; that the 5th defendant is a bona fide purchaser from the 1st defendant; that the relief claimed by the plaintiff and supporting defendants are barred by limitation and ouster; that the suit is barred by acquiescence since the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 have been seeing the improvements affected by the defendants 5 to 9; that the defendants 5 to 9 have paid valid consideration to their vendors and thereafter they have effected vast and valuable improvements in their respective properties by investing huge amounts; that from the documents it is clear that there is no property for Ramdas in Nekraje Village and that it appears that the reference of Nekraje Village instead of Paddy Village is a mutual mistake.
5. The defendants 6 to 8 also filed joint Written Statement and the 9th respondent filed separate Written Statement with more or less same contentions as those raised by the 5th respondent.
6. The plaintiff amended the plaint by substituting R.S. No. 258/2 with R.S. 258/3 in the Plaint A schedule. Some of the defendants filed additional Written Statements also.
7. The plaintiff and the defendant 1 to 4 who supported the plaintiff did not adduce any evidence. The counsel for the 1st defendant filed Memo reporting no instructions and the 1st defenda
Ratification of a void transaction cannot be inferred from mere silence; Power of Attorney must be strictly construed.
The presumption of validity of a registered sale deed cannot be dismissed without compelling evidence to substantiate claims of fraud and incapacity.
Point of law : non-delivery of possession by the plaintiff to the defendant does not by itself or other facts cumulatively pointed out by the plaintiff, would lead to the conclusion that the transact....
The stipulations in a settlement deed do not confer absolute rights to a transferee, rendering subsequent sale deeds void if executed without such rights.
Documents executed under familial trust must meet legal standards of consent to avoid being deemed void; misrepresentation necessitates formal cancellation procedures.
The sale deed executed without valid payment consideration is deemed sham, preventing any title transfer, establishing that property ownership remains with original heirs under the valid Will.
Proof of an unregistered Will is sufficient if established by other means, while a power of attorney coupled with consideration survives the principal's death.
An unregistered partition deed is inadmissible and requires registration to be binding, emphasizing the need for substantiation of partition claims.
(1) Revocation of agency – In absence of a particular mode suggested for revocation of authority of an agent, manner adopted by principal to revoke authority of agent must be one which clearly and un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
