SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1681

MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. Rajendran, J.
T. Sivaperumal - Appellants
Versus.
S. Viswanathan & Others - Respondents
S.A.(MD).No.1165 of 2011
Decided On : April 19, 2013

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. D. Sadiqraja
Mr. V.R. Venkatesan
Mr. Velmurugan, Government Advocate

A power of attorney coupled with interest cannot be cancelled without proper notice. The cancellation must be duly intimated to the concerned party.

Headnote:

Indian Contract Act - Section 202: A power of attorney coupled with interest cannot be cancelled without proper notice. The cancellation must be duly intimated to the concerned party. Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act (14 of 1955) - Section 40(1): The payment of court fees for cancellation of a sale deed is required. Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act (14 of 1955) - Section 25(d): The payment of court fees for a declaration of title is required.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, the defendant in the suit, executed a sale deed in his favor even after the power of attorney was cancelled by the first respondent. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration of title and possession of the property and cancellation of the sale deed. The lower court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The appellant filed this second appeal against the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence and documents presented. It found that the power of attorney was coupled with interest as possession and original title deeds were handed over to the appellant. The court also considered the expert opinion that confirmed the signature in the sale deed and power of attorney were the same. The court concluded that the cancellation of the power of attorney was not properly intimated to the appellant and that the sale deed was valid. It held that the lower courts failed to consider the close relationship between the parties and the fact that the appellant had received the entire sale consideration and possession of the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of attorney, coupled with interest, cannot be cancelled without proper notice. The cancellation must be duly intimated to the concerned party. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances and relationship between the parties when interpreting legal documents. The court held that the sale deed executed by the appellant was valid.

Result: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree in favor of the first respondent were dismissed. The suit was also dismissed.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal appeal was originally dismissed on 24.09.2012 for default. Later on, it was restored on its file.

2. The facts of the Second Appeal, in a nutshell, is as follows:-

The defendant is the appellant herein. The first and second respondents are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The second plaintiff obtained a settlement patta in her favour and thereafter, put up construction at her own cost. Thereafter, the second plaintiff executed the said settlement deed in favour of her husband, namely, the first plaintiff, in the year 1997. Right now, the first plaintiff is the owner of the property in question. The first plaintiff is working as a Village Administrative Officer. The first defendant in the suit was the sister's husband of the first plaintiff. Due to the close relationship, the first plaintiff had executed the power of attorney on 16.09.2002 in favour of him and he had also registered the said power of attorney. Consequently, the plaintiffs had handed over all the documents.

3. While the matter stood thus, since, the appellant herein acted against the interests to the plaintiffs/ respondents, by virtue of a document, dated 10.11.2005, the first respondent cancelled the said power of attorney. The same was also intimated by way of 'certificate of posting' to the first defendant/appellant, on 17.11.2005 itself. According to him, it was received by the first defendant. Thereafter, on 03.06.2006, he made a publication also in 'dinamalar' in this regard.

4. Inspite of the fact that the power of attorney was cancelled, the first defendant had executed the sale deed in his favour, on 05.05.2006, as if it has been sold for a consideration of Rs.3,36,000/-. Such document is not legally sustainable. Therefore, he issued a lawyer's notice on 29.06.2006. Though it was received by the first defendant, he has not replied the same. With this background, the plaintiffs/respondents filed suit for a declaration of title and possession of the property in question. He has also filed this suit for cancellation of the sale deed. He also impleaded the Sub-Registrar, Karaikudi, in this regard.

5. The first defendant has filed a written statement specifically denying that the cancellation of power of attorney was not intimated to him by the alleged 'certificate of posting' on 17.11.2005 and the alleged publication has been made only after the sale deed had been executed in his favour and even in the publication, nothing has been mentioned about the cancellation of the power of attorney. He would further contend that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in question. In fact, all the original documents have been handed over to him. He would mainly contend that even as early as prior to the power of attorney, on 14.09.2002 itself, the first plaintiff agreed to sell the property for which, he entered into a document also. Accordingly, the entire sale consideration was received, original title deeds was given and also the possession was handed over. Only for the completion of the sale deed, the power of attorney was executed. Therefore, the power of attorney is executed coupled with interest. Hence, it is an irrecovable power of attorney. Subsequently, the sale deed has also been executed. He has also specifically pleaded at no point of time, the cancellation of power of attorney was ever intimated to him.

6. The plaintiff had examined himself and produced documents Exs.A.1 to 13. Likewise, the defendant had examined himself and two others and produced Exs.B.1 to 11. The Court exhibits are marked as Exs.1 to 3.

7. The Lower Court, taking into consideration the close relationship between the parties, namely, the plaintiff and the first defendant and on the basis of the recital in the sale deed under Exs.B.4 and 6, it held that the sale deed did not contain anything about the alleged sale transaction nor there is an evidence that the sale took place prior to the power of attorney nor the power of attorney is cou







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top