2019 Supreme(Mad) 2073
M.M.SUNDRESH, C.SARAVANAN
B. R. Shankar – Appellant
Versus
B. R. Srinivasa Rao – Respondent
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel for T.C. Gopalakrishnan for G.K. Law Firm, Advocates
For the Respondents:V. Raghupathi, Advocate
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The case involves a dispute over two properties measuring 2511 sq.ft. and 2499 sq.ft. located adjacent to each other, where the 3rd Defendant was the seller [21001343770006].
- There was no dispute that the 3rd Defendant received full sale consideration, though there was a disagreement on who paid it (Plaintiffs claimed it was paid through the 1st Defendant, while the 1st Defendant claimed independent payment) [21001343770006].
- The 3rd Defendant had executed Power of Attorneys (Ex. P1/D4 and Ex. P2/D5) in favor of the 2nd Plaintiff, which were later given to the 1st Defendant as per family custom [21001343770007].
- Using certified copies of these Power of Attorneys, the 2nd Plaintiff executed a Sale Deed (Ex. P3) dated 15.4.2008 in favor of the 1st Plaintiff [21001343770008].
- After the execution of Ex. P3, the 3rd Defendant revoked the Power of Attorneys (Ex. P1/D4 and Ex. P2/D5) vide Ex. D6/D7 dated 16.9.2008 [21001343770009].
- Subsequently, the 3rd Defendant executed another Sale Deed (Ex. P6/D8) dated 17.9.2008 in favor of the 4th Defendant [21001343770010].
- The Plaintiffs filed a suit to declare Ex. P6/D8 illegal, null, and void, seeking a permanent injunction against the Appellants [21001343770011].
- The Defendants filed a counter-claim to set aside Ex. P3 and seek a permanent injunction against the Plaintiffs [21001343770012].
- The High Court held that once the Power of Attorney was exercised by executing Ex. P3, the subsequent revocation (Ex. D6/D7) was of no significance [21001343770047].
- The Court ruled that the execution of Ex. P6/D8 was an exercise in futility as the 3rd Defendant no longer had title to the property after Ex. P3 was registered [21001343770050].
- The Court concluded that the 3rd Defendant could not unilaterally treat the first sale as void without approaching the Court, and the unilateral cancellation of Power of Attorneys was ineffective after the power was fully utilized [21001343770074].
- The Court found that the first transfer to the 1st Plaintiff was valid in the absence of contra evidence regarding the source of capital for the purchase [21001343770071].
- The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, decreeing the suit as prayed for and dismissing the counter-claim [21001343770078].
JUDGMENT :
C. Saravanan, J.
1. The Appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 15.3.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S. No. 14 of 2009.
2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the learned Single Judge has not only decreed the Suit as prayed for by the Respondents (Plaintiffs) but has also dismissed the Counter-claim filed by the Appellants (Defendants). Thus, the present Appeals.
3. For narration of relevant facts we are referring to the ranks of the respective parties in the above Suit. To understand and appreciate the dispute we will briefly explain the relationship between the parties.
4. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants barring the 3rd Defendant belong to the same family. The 1st Plaintiff is the younger brother of the 1st Defendant. 2nd Plaintiff & 2nd Defendant are their respective spouses. The 4th Defendant is the daughter of the 1st & 2nd Defendants.
5. Dispute is primarily between the members of the same family, who are incidentally Business Partners. Certain Business dispute between the 1st -2nd Plaintiffs with 1st - 2nd Defendants is in the background to the present dispute which had resulted in filing of the Suit and Counter-
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
