Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Theresa, (deceased), M. Vanathaiyan alias Theresa Michael & Others – Appellant
Versus
L. Rajalakshmi (died) & Others – Respondent
A.S. No. 170 of 2004 & C.M.P. Nos. 1629 & 4485 of 2021
Decided On : 25-03-2021
Workman Compensation Act – Indian Contract Act – Sections 201, 214 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Relief of injunction – Cancellation of the sale deeds – First Appeal is filed under Section 96 Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in O.S. on the file of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court – Suit was filed by cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of the 3rd respondent/appellant herein and consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property or putting up any construction in the suit property. – Trial Court allowed the suit – Aggrieved by the Trial Court judgment and decree, the 3rd defendant is before this Court
Finding of court: By cancellation of sale deeds Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, the power of attorney given in favour of 1st defendant continues since the property earlier sold to his own wife and daughter was cancelled. – There was no difficulty faced by the agent and therefore, the 1st defendant has not communicated to the principals. – Even if there is any failure on his part, this cannot be attributed to the 3rd defendant who is the third party. – The stoic silence on the part of the plaintiffs for more than 2 years after executing the power of attorney and their own sister being the party to all the subsequent transactions, the third party purchasers cannot be taken for ride. – The grievance of the plaintiffs, if any, shall only be confined against the 1 & 2nd defendant and they cannot go further to the third party unless fraud and malafide proved. – It is a clear case of make belief story spinned by the plaintiffs after due advice, claiming ignorance of events and trust on the agent. – At the same time alleging fraud on their agent and the third party purchaser. – Court finds that the Trial Court had considered the evidence lopsidedly and not on holistic manner. – The fraud alleged by the plaintiff is only an afterthought. – The conduct of the 2nd defendant, who is the sister of the plaintiffs Nos.2 to 5 belies the case of the plaintiffs. – Having sold the property to the 3rd defendant a bonafide purchaser now they have all joined together to defeat the right enured on the plaintiff. – Having conveniently stayed away from the proceedings before the trial Court, in the appeal, they sail together and try to nullify their own conduct by challenging the transaction in favour of the 3rd defendant. – Plaintiff explicitly accept the transactions done by 1st and 2nd defendant under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 i.e., Sale deeds and subsequent cancellation deed. – While accepting those as genuine and not challenging those transactions, they cannot partially question the subsequent transaction in favour of the 3rd defendant. – Said claim in the suit itself bristles with malafide. Since the trial Court has failed to consider the facts properly, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. is liable to be set aside.
Result: Appeal Suit Allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.2935 of 1998 dated 31.07.2003 on the file of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court.)
1. The third defendant in the suit is the appellant herein.
2. The suit was filed by cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of the 3rd respondent/appellant herein and consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property or putting up any construction in the suit property.
3. The Trial Court allowed the suit. Aggrieved by the Trial Court judgment and decree, the 3rd defendant is before this Court.
4. The brief facts of the case:-
On 27.04.1994, the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant Padmavathy entered into a sale agreement with the 1st defendant Selvam in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. They received Rs.6,000/- as advance and agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of Selvam or his nominees, on receipt of the balance consideration. 12 months time was fixed for completion of the transaction and by that time, the vendors agreed to clear the encumbrance and obtain income tax clearance certificate and furnish the title documents relating to the suit property. The parties agreed that if there is any delay or default on the part of the vendors, the purchaser will be entitled to enforce the agreement specifically against the vendors or he may opt for liquidated damages. Pre-estimated at Rs.50,000/- and return the advance money of Rs.6,000/- with 24% interest. If the purchaser opt out from contract and commit delay or default, the advance money will be forfeited. In the sale agreement, the execution of power of attorney in favour of 1st defendant/R.Selvam on the same day 27.04.1994 is mentioned. As per the power of attorney 1st defendant Selvam is authorised to mortgage sale and otherwise alienate the property in any manner on the basis of agency coupled with interest also mentioned. The power of attorney is irrevocable and will be in force till the transactions completed and property is fully developed. The purchaser shall complete the payment of consideration within time stipulated above or within such extended time, as it is necessary and required. The recitals in the sale agreement and in the power of attorney deed are supplementary to each other.
5. The Appellant herein/3rd defendant on 17.05.1995 had purchased 2140sq.ft from out of 6534sq.ft comprised under the power of attorney deed and on 18.05.1995 another 2145sq.ft of land from Selvam (as power agent of the plaintiffs) and Padmavathy (as power agent of her sister Thulasi Bai). The said two sale deeds are subject matter of the suit.
6. Case of the plaintiffs:-
The suit property belongs to their father Lakshmipathi Chettiar. On his death, they along with the 2nd defendant and one Thulasi Bai inherited it as legal heirs of Lakshmipathi Chettiar. Padmavathy/2nd defendant wanted to raise money to finance the education of her son in the BDS course at Annamalai University, Chidambaram, so she pressurized other family members to sell the family property which they have inherited from father R.Lakshmipathi Chettair. Due to the pressure of 2nd defendant, the plaintiffs agreed to sell the property for Rs.5,00,000/- and get their respective share in the sale price. Padamavathy arranged 1st defendant/Selvam and entered into a sale agreement on 27.04.1994 and on very same day, power of attorney deed was also executed in favour of 1st defendant/Selvam. Thereafter, there was no communication from the 2nd defendant/Padmavathy, except the receipt of Rs.6,000/- in total, as against the sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, the plaintiffs have not received any money from the 1st defendant/Selvam. Believing the representation made by the 1st defendant, the original documents of the property were handed over to the 1st defendant/Selvam. Thereafter, he failed and deliberately neglected to pay the balance sale consideration to the pla
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
