2010 Supreme(Mad) 4135

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
Nagammal & Others
Versus
K. Thangavel & Others
S.A.No.1052 of 2009
Decided On : 20-09-2010

A power of attorney granted in favour of an agent would come to an end on the death of the Principal.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 4(1) AND 5(A) - POWER OF ATTORNEY - REVOCATION - IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY - SALE DEED - VALIDITY - INJUNCTION - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 17 - UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT - BURDEN OF PROOF - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - SECTION 202, 208.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by the defendants 11 to 14 are fraudulent, invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs, and for a further declaration that the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 6 are the absolute owners of the suit property mentioned under schedules I to III, and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 11 to 14 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties, by the plaintiffs 2, 5 and 6, and for costs. The defendants 11 to 14 in the suit, who were the appellants in the present second appeal, had preferred the present second appeal, before this court, raising the following questions, as substantial questions of law: i. Are the Courts below right in decreeing the suit without deciding whether the suit for declaration and injunction is maintainable without seeking a relief of specific performance? ii. In the absence of a registered instrument, whether the plaintiff can plead that he has power coupled with interest? iii. Whether the alleged settlement deed is valid in law when no right flows to the power of attorney to execute a settlement deed? iv. When the Courts have well admitted the possession of the defendants by relying on various documents, still are the Courts below right in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction?

Finding of the Court:

The Courts below had rightly held that the respondents are entitled to the suit properties, as claimed in the suit, in O.S.No.3987 of 2004. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that Arumugha Asari had executed a power of attorney, dated 24.4.1992, marked as Exhibit A.2, in favour of the first plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No. 3987 of 2004, who is the first respondent in the present second appeal.

Issues: 1. Whether it is correct to state that the defendants 1 to 10 and their father had issued a letter, dated 24.4.1992, confirming the agreement for sale, after having received Rs.3,23,000/-? 2. Whether the sale deeds under document Nos.1366 of 1998 and 1367 of 1998 in the name of the defendants 11 to 14 are valid? 3. Whether the suit schedule 1 to 3 properties belong to the defendants 2, 5 and 6 exclusively? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed for by them? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for by them? 6. What other reliefs?

Ratio Decidendi: The power of attorney executed by Arumugha Asari, in favour of the first plaintiff, marked as Exhibit A.2, cannot be held to be of an irrevocable nature. The sale deeds, dated 13.5.1997, executed by the first plaintiff, in favour of the plaintiffs 5 and 6, marked as Exhibits A.6 and A.7, respectively, and the settlement deed, dated 25.7.1993, marked as Exhibit A.5, executed by the first plaintiff, in favour of the second plaintiff trust, cannot be held to be valid, in view of the fact that they had been executed by the first plaintiff, who was the power of attorney agent, after the death of Arumugha Asari, the principal, on 25.7.1993. However, the defendants had not been in a position to prove, by sufficient evidence, that the first plaintiff was aware of the death of Arumugha Asari, when he had executed the said sale deeds and the settlement deed. Further, there is no proper explanation from the side of the defendants as to how the original title deeds and the other relevant documents, relating to the suit properties, were in the custody of the first plaintiff.

Final Decision: The present second appeal filed by the appellants is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.