Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.
Prakashchand & Others
Versus
Velmurugan Constructions by its Partners & Others
C.S. No. 2052 of 1995
Decided On : 03-12-2014
SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE - POSSESSION - MESNE PROFITS - WILL - POWER OF ATTORNEY - PARTNERSHIP - REGISTRATION - LIMITATION - SECTION 145 OF CR.P.C. - SECTION 146 OF CR.P.C. - SECTION 69 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 14 OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 - SECTION 201 OF THE CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - SECTION 17 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 59 OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 - SECTION 63 OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 - SECTION 69 OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 - SECTION 58 OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits of the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed that they had purchased the suit property from the 6th defendant, who was the daughter of the original owner, T.K. Jayalakshmi. The defendants claimed that the suit property was part of a partnership firm in which T.K. Jayalakshmi was a partner and that they had acquired the property through a sale agreement with the firm. The defendants also claimed that the plaintiffs' sale deeds were sham and nominal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the will executed by T.K. Jayalakshmi was valid and binding on the parties and that the power of attorney deed executed by the 6th defendant in favor of Gouthamchand was also valid. The court further held that the decree passed in O.S. No. 956 of 1998, by which the probate granted to the 6th defendant was declared null and void, was a nullity. The court also held that the partnership firm claimed by the defendants was not registered and that the sale agreement executed by the firm was therefore void. The court also held that the plaintiffs' sale deeds were genuine and that they had acquired title to the suit property.
Issues: 1. Whether the will said to have been executed by the mother of the 6th Defendant is valid and binding on the parties? 2. Whether the Power of Attorney deed dated 6.10.1994 registered as Document No. 836 of 1994 is valid? 3. Whether the decree passed in O.S. No. 956 of 1998 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai in favour of the 1st Defendant and against the 6th Defendant is a nullity and unenforceable? 4. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to get declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property as prayed for? 5. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to seek mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit property? 6. To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A will is valid and binding on the parties if it is duly executed and attested and if the testator had the capacity to make a will. 2. A power of attorney is valid if it is executed in accordance with the requirements of the law and if the agent has the authority to act on behalf of the principal. 3. A decree passed by a court is null and void if the court did not have jurisdiction to pass the decree or if the decree was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 4. A partnership firm is not valid unless it is registered in accordance with the requirements of the law. 5. A sale agreement executed by a partnership firm is void if the firm is not registered. 6. A sale deed is genuine if it is duly executed and registered and if the vendor had the capacity to sell the property.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs and declared that they were the owners of the suit property. The court also directed the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of possession.
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.
1. This suit has been filed to pass a judgment and decree:-
(a) Declaring the Plaintiffs' title to the suit property.
(b) Directing the 1st Defendant and its partners, viz. the Defendants 2 to 5 to put the Plaintiffs in possession of the suit property.
b(i) Directing the 1st Defendant and its partners viz. the Defendants 2 to 5 to, jointly and severally, pay to the Plaintiffs mesne profits at Rs. 25,000/- per month or such other rate as this court may deem fit from the date of plaint to the date of delivery of possession of the suit property to the Plaintiffs.
b(ii) Declaring that the decree obtained in O.S. No. 956 of 1998 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai by the 1st Defendant against the 6th Defendant is null and cannot affect the title of the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit property.
(c) Directing the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
2. The plaint averments are as follows:-
(a) Each of the Plaintiffs has purchased 2/14th share of the suit property, by two registered sale deeds dated 31.10.1994, for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- each from the 6th Defendant represented by her Power of Attorney Agent Gouthamchand, appointed by her under a registered deed dated 6.10.1994. Under this deed, the Power of Attorney was specifically empowered to sell the suit property. The 6th Defendant had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property under a deed dated 24.07.1994 with the Plaintiffs. As the 6th Defendant could not personally execute the sale deed due to some inconveniences, she had appointed Gouthamchand as her Power of Attorney to execute the sale deed. Accordingly, he has executed the above said sale deed in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' vendor, the 6th Defendant is the daughter of late one T.K. Jayalakshmi and her father Thanikachalam died on 3.6.1940 and her mother Thanigambal on 17.3.1958. Her two brothers died during the life time of her parents. Among her four sisters, two also died without marriage. The Plaintiffs' vendor's parents had no properties of their own. The vendor's mother was married to one Kannappa Mudaliar and he predeceased his mother Saravanan Ammal, who inherited his properties and she had executed a settlement deed in respect of them in favour of her daughter in law T.K. Jayalakshmi under a registered deed dated 25.2.1994. Among the other two sisters of T.K. Jayalakshmi, E.T. Padmavathi Ammal, out of her own earning and savings, purchased some properties in her name. The other sister E.T. Chockammal got the suit item allotted in her name under hire purchase system with M/s. Raja Annamalaipuram Housing Society. She had nominated her sister Padmavathi in respect of the suit property as a person to get it after her death. She died later. Padmavathi came into possession of the suit property and continued to pay the instalments. On 12.7.1972, she died intestate without marriage. The Plaintiffs' vendor's mother T.K. Jayalakshmi, as the only heir of Padmavathi, continued to pay till the last instalment and got the suit item conveyed to her by the Society on 19.6.1975 duly registered on 20.6.1975. She had also purchased some properties in her own name with her earnings. In respect of these properties, the properties got from her mother in law and sister Padmavathi, T.K. Jayalakshmi had executed a registered will in favour of the 6th Defendant bequeathing them all on 19.12.1981. She died on 10.10.1985 without revoking the said will. On and from that date, the will came into force and operative.
(b) The Legatee under the will executed by T.K. Jayalakshmi viz. the 6th Defendant got the will probated in the High Court of Madras in O.P. No. 569 of 1991 after due publication of the claim made therein in Newspapers. Neither the Defendants nor anybody else entered appearance and raised any objection to the grant of probate in favour of the legatee. This court, thereafter, on 16.4.1993 has granted a Letter of Probate in favour of the
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
