Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1377
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
Gnanasoundary & Others
Versus
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration & Others
W.P.No.9650 of 2003
Decided on : 24-04-2008
For the Petitioner:Sujatha Rangarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1 to R3, N. Senthilkumar, Government Advocate, R4, E.R.K. Moorthy,
R.6 to 16 and R.18 to R.31. R. Thiagarajan, Sr. Counsel, T.R. Ramarathnam, R17, D. Jayasingh, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and implications of the power of attorney given by property owners for property transactions. The court emphasized the jurisdiction of revenue authorities and the option for the petitioners to seek remedy in the competent court of law.
Headnote:
Power of Attorney - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act,1882, Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act,1908 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 and Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act,1908. The court interpreted the power of attorney given by the property owners and its implications on subsequent transactions. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the power of attorney and its validity in delegating authority to a third party for property transactions.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the order of the 1st respondent setting aside the order of the District Collector, Chennai, directing the Tahsildar to effect change in the patta in favor of the appellants. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the property owners, who granted power of attorney to a third party for joint development of the property. The third party misused the power and sold the property to various third parties. The court analyzed the legality of these transactions and subsequent legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the power of attorney given by the property owners to a third party for joint development and sale of the property was valid and binding. The court also found that the subsequent transactions and legal proceedings, including the cancellation of sub-division pattas, were not within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. The court emphasized that the petitioners had not taken steps to set aside the decree in favor of the subsequent purchaser, and therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent was upheld.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the validity of the power of attorney given by the property owners, the legality of subsequent property transactions, and the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities in granting pattas and canceling sub-division pattas.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the power of attorney given by the property owners and its implications on subsequent property transactions. The court emphasized that the revenue authorities did not have jurisdiction to decide the legality of the property transactions, and the petitioners had not taken steps to set aside the decree in favor of the subsequent purchaser.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the first respondent setting aside the order of the District Collector was upheld. The court emphasized that the petitioners had the option to seek remedy in the competent court of law against the entire transaction involving the power of attorney and subsequent property transactions.
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 10.02.2003, in which the revision petition filed by the 6th respondent and others has been allowed by the 1st respondent setting aside the order of the District Collector, Chennai dated 11.05.2002, under which the District Collector has directed the Tahsildar to effect change in the patta in favour of the appellants, namely M/s. R. Shanmugam and Dhandapani.
2. Petitioners 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the said R. Shanmugam. M. Dhandapani, the 4th petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and in his place, his legal representatives were impleaded as petitioners 5 and 6. The said Dhandapani, 4th petitioner and Shanmugam, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 were the adjoining owners of land in question and due to their joint development, they have common interest. The petitioners are the owners of the property bearing Survey No.257 of Velachery Village, measuring an extent of 4.20 acres consisting of 52 plots in the approved layout called "Bala Murugan Nagar". Out of the total extent of 4.20 acres, R. Shanmugam was the owner of 2.10 acres situated on the southern portion and 4th petitioner Dhandapani was the owner of the other 2.10 acres situated on the northern portion. The 4th petitioner Dhandapani got this 2.10 acres on the northern portion by a registered partition deed dated 29. 1969.
2(a). The said Shanmugam and Dhandapani, in order to have joint development of the property, granted registered power in favour of one C. Krishnamoorthy. The 4th petitioner Dhandapani has given the registered power to him by a document dated 19.04.1974 while R. Shanmugam has given power under the document-dated 20.02.1974. As per the registered power document, Shanmugam has given power to C. Krishnamoorthy in respect of 1.10 acres out of the total extent of 2.10 acres while Dhandapani gave power to C. Krishnamoorthy in respect of 1.00 acre out of 2.10 acres for the purpose of laying out and formation of plots and to sell the same.
2(b). According to them, the power agent C. Krishnamoorthy has started misusing his power and created fraudulent documents of power of attorney indiscriminately and he has appointed one Ramesh as his power agent by an ante-dated deed of unregistered power dated 011. 1973 and sold the extent of 2.10 acres as well as other extent of 2.10 acres as unapproved plots to various third parties. It is also stated that the said C. Krishnamoorthy has created various registered power of attorney documents forging the signatures of R. Shanmugam and Dhandapani. The said C. Krishnamoorthy in collusion with Ramesh has sold the entire extent of 4.20 acres in the form of unapproved plots to the public, about which criminal complaints were lodged against them and the criminal court has imposed punishment.
2(c). It is also stated that the said C. Krishnamoorthy and Ramesh have also entered various agreements with other third parties and created equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds. Again, the said C. Krishnamoorthy appointed one Sekar as his power agent under an unregistered power of attorney dated 20.7.1983 for selling the property. The said Ramesh representing as the irrevocable power of attorney agent of Krishnamoorthy and as owner of the said property entered into an agreement of sale with one Marimuthu Chettiar on 010. 1982 under a registered document. It is also the case of the 4th petitioner that during the time when the criminal case was pending against the said Krishnamoorthy, he obtained an undertaking from M/s. Shanmugam and Dhandapani on 17. 83, relinquishing their rights in respect of the entire extent of 4.20 acres and all the original title deeds were deposited in Syndicate Bank as collateral security to raise loan for his business. As there was default in payment, the bank filed suit in C.S.1419 of 1983. In the meantime, the said Ramesh who has no authority what
