Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Pravin Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
Viswaraj Sankar and Others – Respondents
A.S. No. 437 of 2014
Decided On : 20-10-2021
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 208 - Property - Sale Deed - Whether sale in favour of 2nd defendant was sham and nominal - Whether cancellation deed was communicated to 1st defendant and 2nd defendant/3rd defendant before sale-deeds was executed - Whether cancellation has been communicated to 1st defendant as contemplated under Section 208 of Indian Contract Act - Whether sale in favour of 2nd defendant is a valid one and not sham and nominal document and consequently sale in favour of defendants 3 and 4 would also be valid and not a sham and nominal one – Held, It is an admitted case that plaintiff had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of 1st defendant authorising him to do all acts including sale of property - There is no explanation side of plaintiff as to why cancellation of Power of Attorney has been registered on file of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Coimbatore - Learned senior counsel for plaintiff had contended that there is no proof of passing of consideration and would rely on certain portion of deposition of 2nd defendant during his cross examination as DW-2 - However, on a reading of entire evidence, it is seen that 2nd defendant had stated that suit property was first property he had purchased and that he had obtained money in a partition in his family and that amount has been utilised for purchasing suit property - In his cross examination plaintiff would depose that he and 1st defendant continue to remain on friendly terms - All this would only go to prove that sale consideration has been used to settle claims as contended by 1st defendant - Therefore, this Court proceeds to hold that sale-deed is backed by consideration and is therefore a valid document and not a sham and nominal one as contended by plaintiff - Therefore, sale in favour of defendants 3 and 4 are valid - Plaintiff who had come to know about sale in favour of 2nd defendant as early as in year has instituted suit only in year and there is absolutely no explanation for delay especially when plaintiff had issued notice itself - Therefore, second point for consideration is also answered against plaintiff - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
P.T. ASHA, J.
Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.2014 in O.S. No. 17 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, of the Nilgiris at Udagamandalam.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit O.S. No. 17 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.
2. Relief claimed:
(b) For a declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the Plaintiff.
(d) For costs of the suit.
(e) For such other further relief as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.”
3. Schedule of Properties:
| Registration District | The Nilgiris |
| Registration Sub-District | Ootacamund |
| Town/Municipality | Ootacamund |
| Name of the Property | Hill Crest |
| R.S. Nos. | 638 and 640 |
| T.S. No. | K/5/23/2 |
| Extent Owned | 2.18 Acres |
| BOUNDARIES: | |
| North and West | Forest |
| South | Land belonging to Thammannan |
| East | Common Road, portion conveyed to K.S. Sivakumar and another and Municipal Foot Path. |
4. Plaintiff’s case:
(ii) On 02.09.2005, the plaintiff had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st defendant, authorising him to alienate the property.
(iii) It is the case of the plaintiff that after the execution of the Power of Attorney, he came to learn that the 1st defendant was giving out and claiming that he was the absolute owner of the property and therefore the plaintiff had proceeded to cancel the Power of Attorney dated 02.09.2005, under a cancellation of Power of Attorney dated 13.10.2005. The cancellation was communicated to the 1st defendant under a cover of letter dated 21.10.2005 along with the copy of the cancellation deed.
(iv) The plaintiff had not received the postal acknowledgment and a complaint was given on 27.12.2006 and the postal authorities had informed the plaintiff that the letter dated 21.10.2005 had been delivered to the 1st defendant on 25.10.2005.
(v) After the cancellation of the Power of Attorney, the plaintiff had received a letter dated 04.12.2006 from the 1st defendant informing him that the property had been sold to the 2nd defendant under a registered sale-deed dated 04.12.2006. Immediately, on receipt of the said letter, the plaintiff had issued a letter dated 13.12.2006 informing the 1st defendant that the execution of the sale-deed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant was without authority as the sale has been executed after the cancellation of the power, which was also known to the 1st defendant. The notice to the 1st defendant was returned “un-served.” The 2nd defendant who received a notice had sent a reply stating totally false contention.
(vi) On 14.05.2007, the 2nd defendant had conveyed a portion of the property
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
