Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
B.R. Shankar and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
B.R. Srinivasa Rao and Ors. – Respondents
O.S.A. Nos. 99 and 100 of 2018
Decided On : 27-06-2019
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65 - Registration Act - evident that the intention - absence of contra evidence – claim of compensation - Defendant is the seller of the Suit Schedule properties measuring 2511 sq.ft. & 2499 sq. ft. located adjacent to each other. There is no dispute that the 3rd Defendant has received full Sale consideration. According to the Plaintiffs the consideration for Exhibit P3 was paid to the 3rd Defendant through 1st Defendant he being the elder of the family, while the 1st Defendant denied the same and claims to have independently paid the consideration to the 3rd Defendant for purchasing the Suit Schedule property for the 4th Defendant - According to the Plaintiffs, after the 3rd Defendant executed Ex. P1/D4 & P2/D5-Power of Attorneys in favour of the 2nd Plaintiff, the original were given to the 1st Defendant, he being the elder brother out of respect as was the family custom. It appears that at that time the relationship were cordial between the members of the family, which later deteriorated – Held, Therefore, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge that if there was any discrepancy or short fall in the payment, it would be a private dispute inter se between the Principal and the Agent i.e. between the 2nd Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant and any short fall in the payment has to be recovered from the 2nd Plaintiff - Even otherwise, even if Sale Deed in Ex. P3 was null and void, it was not open for the 3rd Defendant to unilaterally treat the same as null and void without approaching the Court for declaring the sale as null and void. Mere unilateral cancellation of Ex. P1/D4 & Ex. P2/D5 are of no use after the power given therein was fully utilized with the execution - Though the learned Single Judge has stated that there was a procedural irregularity by the Sub-Registrar it is to be noted that the Sale Deed has been executed in the name of the 3rd Defendant by her Power of Attorneys namely the 2nd Plaintiff on the strength of a valid and subsisting Power of Attorneys in - Fact that the Sub-Registrar had not mentioned that he had verified the Power of Attorney is immaterial as that there was a valid Power of Attorney subsisting on the date of execution of Ex. P3 vide Ex. P1/D4 & Ex. P2/D5 and it is only on the strength of these two documents the said Sale Deed was registered. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the manner in which Ex. P3 was executed - As we have already opined that Ex. P3 was executed on the strength of a valid and subsisting Power of Attorney vide Ex. P1/D4 & Ex. P2/D5, the 3rd Defendant did not have clear title over the Suit Schedule property and she could not have validly conveyed the same in favour of the 4th Defendant. Such being the case, we are of the view that the Judgment and Decree of the learned Single Judge requires no interference in these Appeals - Considering the fact that the 1st transfer to the 1st Plaintiff was made vide Ex. P3 made on the strength of a valid and subsisting Power of Attorney vide Ex. P1/D4 & P2/D5 by the 2nd Plaintiff, it has to be construed that the said sale was valid in absence of any documents by the 1st, 2nd and the 4th Defendants to substantiate their source of capital to purchase the Suit Schedule property. We, therefore, accept the same in absence of contra evidence by the 1st Defendant - Appeals are dismissed
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
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-claim.
6. We are not concerned with the collateral Business dispute between the 1st - 2nd Plaintiffs with 1st - 2nd Defendants. It would suffice to state that those disputes have led to conflict between the parties.
7. The 3rd Defendant is the seller of the Suit Schedule properties measuring 2511 sq.ft. & 2499 sq. ft. located adjacent to each other. There is no dispute that the 3rd Defendant has received full Sale consideration. According to the Plaintiffs the consideration for Exhibit P3 was paid to the 3rd Defendant through 1st Defendant he being the elder of the family, while the 1st Defendant denied the same and claims to have independently paid the consideration to the 3rd Defendant for purchasing the Suit Schedule property for the 4th Defendant.
8. According to the Plaintiffs, after the 3rd Defendant executed Ex. P1/D4 & P2/D5-Power of Attorneys in favour of the 2nd Plaintiff, the original were given to the 1st Defendant, he being the elder brother out of respect as was the family custom. It appears that at that time the relationship were cordial between the members of the family, which later deteriorated.
9. The Plaintiffs later obtained Certified copy of Ex. P1/D4 & Ex. P2/D5 from the Sub-Registrar's office and on the strength of the Certified copies, the 2nd Plaintiff executed Ex. P3-Sale Deed, dated 15.4.2008 in favour of the 1st Plaintiff in respect of the 2 properties.
10. The above Sale Deed was executed by the 2nd Plaintiff as the Power Agent of the 3rd Defendant on the strength of Ex. P1/D4 & Ex. P2/D5. After Ex. P3-Sale Deed was executed on 15.4.2008, the 3rd Defendant canceled/revoked Ex. P1/D4 & Ex. P2/D5-Power of Attorneys vide Ex. D6/D7, dated 16.9.2008.
11. After cancelling Ex. P1/D4 & Ex. P2/D5 vide Ex. D6/D7, dated 16.9.2008, the 3rd executed Ex. P6/D8-Sale, dated 17.9.2008 Sale Deed in favour of the 4th Defendant, who is the 1st daughter of the 1st & 2nd Defendants. Ex. P6/D8, dated 17.9.2008 was registered as Document No. 7353 of 2008 before the Sub-Registrar Sembium, Chennai.
12. On coming to know that Ex. P6/D8-Sale, dated 17.9.2008 had been executed by the 3rd Defendant in favour of the 4th Defendant, the Plaintiffs filed C.S. No. 14 of 2009 to declare Ex. P6/D8-Sale Deed, dated 17.9.2008 registered on 18.9.2008 as illegal, null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also prayed for a Permanent Injunction restraining the Appellants from interfering with their peaceful possession.
13. The Defendants filed a common Written Statement and also filed a Counter-claim to set aside Ex. P3-Sale Deed, dated 15.4.2008 executed by the 2nd Plaintiff as Power Agent of the 3rd Defendant in favour of the 1st Plaintiff and also prayed for a Permanent Injunction to restrain the Plaintiffs from interfering with the peaceful posse
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
