Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, M.S. RAMESH, JJ.
P.A. Ponnusamy & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
R.V. Rajalakshmi - Respondent
A.S. No. 646 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 18899 of 2016
Decided On : 27-04-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. N. Manokaran
For the Respondent: Ms. P.T. Asha for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent documents and contradictions in pleadings and evidence can lead to the dismissal of a claim. The court emphasized the importance of clarity and consistency in legal documents and evidence.
Headnote:
Fraudulent Sale Deed - Property Dispute - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 53A, Indian Contract Act, Section 17, Indian Evidence Act, Section 101] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the sale deed dated 28.01.2014 was fraudulent and created with a fraudulent intention. The court highlighted the contradictions in the pleadings, evidence, and documents presented by the defendants, and concluded that the sale deed was concocted. The court also emphasized the admission by the first defendant that the Power of Attorney was executed as security for a loan, not with the intention to sell the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, owner of a property, alleged that the first defendant fraudulently executed a sale deed in favor of defendants 2 and 3, despite the property being worth more than the stated sale value. The defendants claimed that the sale was legitimate and based on an earlier transaction with the plaintiff's husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed dated 28.01.2014 was fraudulent and created with a fraudulent intention. The court highlighted the contradictions in the pleadings, evidence, and documents presented by the defendants, and concluded that the sale deed was concocted. The court also emphasized the admission by the first defendant that the Power of Attorney was executed as security for a loan, not with the intention to sell the property.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the sale deed dated 28.01.2014 and the intention behind the execution of the Power of Attorney in favor of the first defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the evidence, including the contradictions in the defendants' pleadings and the admission by the first defendant regarding the purpose of the Power of Attorney. The court also considered the lack of clarity in the documents presented by the defendants.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree dated 15.04.2016 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.66 of 2014 were confirmed, and the appeal suit was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the respondent/plaintiff.
R. Subbiah, J.
This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2016 passed in O.S. No. 66 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam (for short the Trial Court ), whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the respondent herein was decreed.
2. The defendants are the appellants herein and the plaintiff is the respondent herein. To avoid verbosity and for the sake of clarity and convenience, the parties will be referred as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as under:-
3.1 The plaintiff is the owner of the property referred to in the suit schedule. She purchased the said property by a sale deed dated 23.02.2006 as a tiled building. Thereafter, she raised a construction consisting of ground floor and first floor. The market value of the land and building is more than Rs.50 lakhs.
3.2 While so, the first defendant advanced a loan of Rs.5 lakhs to the plaintiff and as a security for the due repayment of the said loan, the first defendant also secured a registered power of attorney in his own name on 13.02.2012. For the property having worth more than Rs.50 lakhs, the first defendant, securing a power of attorney on 13.02.2012 in his favour, on the very same day, executed a sale agreement in respect of the property in favour of his daughter and son-in-law, who are defendants 3 and 2 respectively. In the said sale agreement, all the defendants claimed the value of the property as Rs.16 lakhs. Further, as per the agreement, the defendants 2 and 3 claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to the first defendant as the Power Agent of the plaintiff.
3.3 After a period of two years, on 28.01.2014, the first defendant created a sale deed in the name of the defendants 2 and 3, which is nothing but a fabricated document. The possession of the property still remains with the plaintiff. Within a few minutes after the execution of the Power of Attorney on 13.02.2012 by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant, the sale agreement in the name of the defendants 2 and 3 was executed by the first defendant alleging receipt of Rs.15 lakhs from them. When the property which is situated in a prime locality is worth more than Rs.50 lakhs, clandestinely, the sale deed dated 28.01.2014 has been executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 for a paltry value of Rs.16 lakhs.
3.4 On 10.02.2014, when the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the sale deed dated 28.01.2014 by the first defendant in the name of defendants 2 and 3, she applied for a certified copy of the said document, following which, she issued notice to the defendants on 22.02.2014 and filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 executed by the first defendant in the name of defendants 2 and 3.
4. The third defendant, resisting the claim of the plaintiff, filed a written statement, which is adopted by defendants 1 and 2, the sum and substance of which is as under:-
4.1 Originally, the suit property belonged to one S.V. Duraisamy. The said Duraisamy executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 23.02.2006. Thereafter, on 06.10.2008, the plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Pathirasamy, S/o Subbian, in respect of the suit property which was registered as Document No.613 of 2008, who, in turn, as Power Agent of the plaintiff, entered into a sale agreement with one R. Subbian, S/o Ramasamy on 09.06.2010 to sell the said property for a sum of Rs.17 lakhs. Out of the said sum of Rs.17 lakhs, the said Pathirasamy received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. It was agreed that the balance sum of Rs.2 lakhs would be paid on or before 08.06.2012. The said sale agreement dated 09.06.2010, which was witnessed by the plaintiff's husband K.L. Thomasraj and one Prabakar, was registered as document no.3129 of 2010. Subsequently, the said R. Subbian, S/o Ramasamy, expressed his inability to buy the said property.
