Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 2827
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. SAMPATH
Manicka Gounder & Another
Versus
Lakshmi Ammal rep. by her Power Agent Mr. Kanagasundaram
S.A.Nos.13 and 926 of 1996 and C.M.P. Nos. 87 and 9042 of 1996
Decided On :Decided on: 23-12-1999
For the Appellants :M. Balasubramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G. Rangarathinam, Advocate.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE DEED - EXECUTION - REGISTRATION - DELAY - LIMITATION - POWER OF ATTORNEY - VALIDITY - ADMISSION IN WRITTEN STATEMENT - EFFECT - LETTERS WRITTEN BY AGENT - RELEVANCE - POSSESSION - HANDING OVER - EVIDENCE - SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land. The defendant contended that the power of attorney given to the agent was not valid, the sale deeds could not be relied upon as agreements for sale, and the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the power of attorney was valid, the sale deeds could be relied upon as agreements for sale, and the suit was not barred by limitation. The High Court found that the defendant had admitted in her written statement that the agent had the power to sell the property, and that the letters written by the agent showed that the agreement had not become time-barred. The High Court also found that possession of the property had been handed over to the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the power of attorney given to the agent was valid? 2. Whether the sale deeds could be relied upon as agreements for sale? 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of attorney was valid because the defendant had admitted in her written statement that the agent had the power to sell the property. 2. The sale deeds could be relied upon as agreements for sale because the defendant had admitted in her written statement that the agreed price was Rs. 26,387/- for both the properties in the said suits, that Rs. 8,942/- was paid on that day and for the balance of Rs. 17,445/- Manicka Gounder gave a pronote and this was done to avoid stamp duty and that it was agreed that before the documents were registered the amount due would be paid. 3. The suit was not barred by limitation because the plaintiff had come to Court in time from the date of knowledge of refusal by the agent and consequently by the defendant.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals and restored the decree of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 71 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruthuraipoondi is the appellant in S.A. No. 13 of 1996. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 70 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruthuraipoondi is the appellant in S.A. No. 926 of 1996. The respondent is common in both the matters. The cases are also identical in respect of both the appellants. Both the plaints were presented on 23.2.1987. Wherever necessary the difference if any, will be pointed out. In the course of the judgment we will refer to the parties by their names for the sake of convenience.
2. Vedambal filed O.S. No. 70 of 1987 against Lakshmi Ammal for specific performance for sale of an extent of 1 acre 46 cents in R.S. No. 195/1 in Kathiripulam Village, Vedaranyam Taluk in Nagai District with mango and coconut trees thereon on the following averment.
3. The suit property classified as Manavari Dry belonged to Lakshmi Ammal the defendant in the suit and the respondent herein. At the instance of her sambanthi Manicka Gounder who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 71 of 1987 Vedambal agreed to purchase the suit property from Lakshmi Ammal. At that time Lakshmi Ammal was represented by her power of Attorney Holder Duraivel, who was none other than her own son. For the purpose of selling their properties in India, Lakshmi Ammal and her husband who were in Malaysia constituted, nominated and appointed their son Duraivel as the power of Attorney Holder. Duraivel negotiated with vedambal through her Sambanthi Manicka gounder and settled the transaction in respect of the suit properties for a consideration of Rs. 3,942/-
. Duraivel indeed actually executed a sale deed for the suit property in favour of Vedambal on 29.2.1980 after receiving the entire sale consideration on the date of sale it elf. Duraivel should have attended to the registration in the normal course. They should have got the document registered the next day on 1.3.1980. However, 13.1980 was declared as local holiday in Tanjore District due to Mahamaham festival at Kumbakonam the document could not be registered as originally arranged. Duraivel had come on a short visit. He had only one day left for going back to Malaysia. He left for Madras on 1.3.1980 and immediately left for Malaysia by air. In those circumstances the sale deed dated 29.2.1980 could not be registered. However, Vedambal was put in possession of the suit properties on 29.2.1980 itself in pursuance of the sale deed executed by Duraivel. She took possession and had the suit property ploughed and transplanted with casuarina saplings. In the course of her possession Vedambal had also planted 25 coconut saplings besides the existing trees. The casuarina became ripe for cutting an year prior to the suit namely 1986. She was also negotiating for the sale of standing casuarina to her Sambanthi Manicka Gounder. By about that time Duraivel had come to the suit village with his wife. He had stayed with Somasundara Gounder the elder brother of Manicka gounder and the younger brother of Mariappa Gounder. After visiting the suit property and noting that the casuarina plants raised therein would bring a sizable sum of money entertained dishonest intention of cutting and carrying away the casuarina trees taking advantage of the imperfect title of the vedambal to the suit lands in view of the non-registration of the sale deed. Manicka Gounder called upon Duraivel on behalf of Vedambal and requested him to execute a fresh sale deed and thereby perfect the tide of Vedambal to the suit lands: Duraivel was not responsive but gave an impression that he was willing to return the sale consideration of Rs. 3,942/- and take possession of the suit lands from Vedambal. This was a rude shock to her, therefore, in order to maintain her possession under the unregistered sale deed dated 292.1980 filed a suit against Duraivel in O.S. No. 33 of 1986 before the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam since trespass by Duraivel was apprehended. At the time o
