Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
V.N. Perumal – Appellant
Versus
K. Ramamoorthi & Others – Respondent
S.A.No. 566 of 2005
Decided On : 30-04-2015
Forgery - Property Dispute - Registration Act, Section 28 - The judgment discusses the validity of a sale deed (Ex.A1) and the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellant/plaintiff. The court considered the evidence of the handwriting expert, the appellant's possession and enjoyment of the property, and the actions of the first defendant in attempting to alienate the property. The court concluded that the sale deed was true and genuine, and the appellant was entitled to a declaration of title and injunction as prayed for in the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, acting as the power of attorney for his daughter, filed a suit seeking declaration of title to a property and permanent injunction against the defendants who attempted to disturb the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree. The appellant then filed a second appeal challenging the decision of the first appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the handwriting expert alone was not sufficient to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The court considered the appellant's possession and enjoyment of the property, the actions of the first defendant in attempting to alienate the property, and the evidence of witnesses to conclude that the sale deed was true and genuine. The court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the sale deed (Ex.A1), the possession and enjoyment of the property by the appellant, and the actions of the first defendant in attempting to alienate the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of the handwriting expert alone was not sufficient to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The court considered the appellant's possession and enjoyment of the property, the actions of the first defendant in attempting to alienate the property, and the evidence of witnesses to conclude that the sale deed was true and genuine.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court were set aside, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were restored. There was no order as to costs.
1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 in A.S.No.39 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bhavani, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2004 in O.S.No.378 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.
2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
(i) The power of attorney has filed an application seeking permission for suing in the capacity of power of attorney for his daughter namely, P.Thillaikkarasi, who is the absolute owner of the suit property. He purchased the suit property on 14.11.1995 from the first defendant along with another property under a registered sale deed by document No.4282 of 1995 at Parassala Sub-Registrar Office, Neyyatrikarai Taluk, Trivandrum District, Kerala State. Eversince the date of sale, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by repairing the suit house spending more than Rs.1,75,000/- by digging a well and purchasing of electric motor pump set and paying house tax to the local panchayat. The service connection was originally obtained by the vendor namely, the first defendant which is yet to be transferred in favour of the plaintiff.
(ii) Due to family dispute between Thillaikkarasi, her husband and her father-in-law, the father-in-law/second defendant along with the first defendant attempted to disturb her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. So the plaintiff issued a telegram on 13.06.2000 to the first defendant not to create any encumbrance of the suit property. That apart, the plaintiff also caused a notice to the first defendant on 13.06.2000, which was refused by the first defendant. That apart, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 14.06.2000 and the same was received by the first defendant on 23.06.2000.
(iii) Then the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant created a sale deed in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property on 14.06.2000 and the same was registered before the Sub-Registrar's Office, Bhavani, which is void ab-initio. Since the defendants attempted to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property on 23.06.2000, he constrained to file the present suit for the following reliefs:
“(a) declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit properties;
(b) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and assignees from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner.
(c) to pay the costs of the suit.”
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant, which is adopted by the second defendant are as follows:
(i) The first defendant has not sold the suit property to the plaintiff or to anybody. The alleged sale deed registered at Kerala is a forged and created one. The alleged power of attorney executed by Thillaikkarasi in favour of her father, the plaintiff on the basis of the forged sale deed is also not valid under law. The first defendant sold the suit property in favour of the second defendant on 14.06.2000. The second defendant and his family alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit without prayer of declaration of title is not maintainable under law. No cause of action for the suit. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The gist and essence of the additional written statement filed by the first defendant which is adopted by the second defendant, are as follows:
(i) The schedule of property is newly added and created by the plaintiff, which is not mentioned in the forged sale deed dated 14.11.1995. Therefore, valuation of the suit property, Court fee stated by the plaintiff is absolutely wrong and incorrect. The I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, has no jurisdiction to try the case on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Learned Trial Judge after considering the averments both in the plaint a
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
