Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
N. Velusamy and Another – Appellants
Versus
C. Meenakshi Pavalayammal and Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 597 of 2017, C.M.P. No. 14910 of 2017
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Power of Attorney - Property Dispute - Section 226 of the Contract Act, R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another, K. Kalidass (Deceased) and Others vs. P. Munusami and Another, R. Selvaraj vs. R. Radhakrishna Pillai and Another, G. Narayana Raju (Dead) by his Legal Representative vs. G. Chamaraju and Others, Chattanatha Karayalar vs. Ramachandra Iyer and Another, Kiran Devi vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board and Others, Rajendran and Another vs. Radhakrishnan and Others, R. Raju (Died) Represented by LRs. and Others vs. R. Ganesan and Others in A.S. (MD) No. 16 of 2007 dated 24.03.2023 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the power of attorney, the relationship of Principal and agent, and the burden of proof in property disputes. The court emphasized the need for the plaintiff to prove the property as joint family property and the requirement for valid consideration in property transactions. The court also highlighted the importance of maintaining accurate and admissible accounts in business transactions.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, sister of the 1st Defendant, filed a suit seeking declaration of her ½ share in the suit properties and permanent injunction. The 1st Defendant denied the Plaintiff's share, claiming the properties were separate and self-acquired. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and granted a decree for partition. The 1st and 13th Defendants appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove her entitlement to a share in the suit properties. It held that the burden of proof was on the Plaintiff to establish the properties as joint family property and the purchase of specific items from joint family income. The court also ruled that the Plaintiff was bound by the acts of the 1st Defendant as the Power of Attorney Agent and could not seek relief of partition without challenging the sale deeds. The court set aside the decree for partition in respect of certain items and confirmed it for one item alone.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Plaintiff's entitlement to a share in the suit properties, the validity of the Power of Attorney, and the burden of proof in property disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to establish the properties as joint family property and the purchase of specific items from joint family income. It emphasized the importance of accurate and admissible accounts in business transactions and ruled that the Plaintiff was bound by the acts of the 1st Defendant as the Power of Attorney Agent.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed in part, confirming the decree for partition in respect of one item alone and setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in respect of the remaining items. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BALAJI, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree and judgment dated 24.04.2017 rendered in A.S. No. 75 of 2016 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Erode, reversing the decree and the judgment dated 24.06.2016 rendered in O.S. No. 138 of 2011 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode by allowing this Second appeal.
1. The 1st and 13th Defendants, husband and wife are the Appellants herein.
2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.
3. The material facts that are necessary for deciding the present Second Appeal are as hereunder:
3.2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the properties are the ancestral properties of the father of the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant and as a daughter the Plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share and subsequently when the 1st Defendant obtained a Power of Attorney on the pretext of straightening boundaries with the neighbour, Pavalayammal and misused it to create a Sale Deed in favour of Defendants 7 to 11 and also executed a Sale Deed in favour of his wife, the 13th Defendant and subsequently when the mother of the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant also died, the Plaintiff became entitled to ½ share in the suit properties. It is her further case that she issued a notice for partition on 10.10.2010 and also thereafter she cancelled the Power of Attorney executed by her on 01.12.2010 and even thereafter, the Defendants 1 and 13 effected sale of properties to third parties, viz. Defendants 14, 15 and 16. It is also alleged that the mother was critical and just prior to her demise, the 1st Defendant had used the Power of Attorney executed by the mother along with the Plaintiff to create a Sale Deed in favour of his wife, the 13th Defendant.
4. The 1st Defendant filed a written statement denying the share of the Plaintiff in toto and claiming that the suit properties were not ancestral in nature but separate and self acquired properties of the father of the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. There was a partition of ancestral properties on 01.02.1984 and 06.02.1984 and the father became entitled to ½ share and the 1st Defendant became entitled to ½ share and therefore, the Plaintiff would only be entitled to 1/4th share after the demise of the parents and the remaining 3/4th share would be the 1st Defendant’s share. In any event, the 1st item according to the 1st Defendant was purchased out of the own funds of the 1st Defendant and it belonged to him absolutely. The Plaintiff executed the power voluntarily as she wanted to sell her share to meet family needs and discharge debts of her husband. The 13th Defendant, wife of the 1st Defendant and her parents provided money and jewels which were used for the business being run by the 1st Defendant. After sale of the lands, the Plaintiff was given her due share and it is denied that the 1st Defendant used the sale proceeds to clear his personal debts. It is also denied that the mother was in hospital from on 03.08.2010 and during that period the Sale Deed was executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 13th Defendant. The suit filed without seeking cancellation of the sale deeds was not maintainable and the sale deeds were all valid and binding on the Plaintiff and therefore the 1st Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The 1st Defendant also filed an additional written statement stating that the 1st defendant has no objection for a partition of the 6th item alone and allotting 1/4th share therein to the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any share in items 2 to 5.
6
The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to establish the properties as joint family property and the purchase of specific items from joint family income. The Plaintiff is bound by the acts of the 1....
The court emphasized that evidence cannot be adduced contrary to the arguments in a written document and held that the relief of partition cannot be granted in the face of a document registered lawfu....
Proof of an unregistered Will is sufficient if established by other means, while a power of attorney coupled with consideration survives the principal's death.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a sale deed executed by the family manager, the entitlement of daughters to ancestral property under the Amended Hindu Succes....
The court affirmed the validity of a power of attorney and subsequent sale of property, rejecting claims of ancestral rights that conflicted with established ownership documents.
(1) Partition of property – It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek cancellation of alienations.(2) Power of Attorney – Ordinarily, a Power of Attorney is to be con....
Will - In terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to examine the attestors of this Will.
In joint family property disputes, a guardian may transact on behalf of minors without court sanction, provided sales serve family interests.
The legal principle established is that in cases involving the sale of joint family property, the burden of proving legal necessity lies with the purchaser only if the plaintiffs have properly pleade....
The necessity to provide evidence of entitlement to ancestral property and the importance of including all relevant parties in a partition suit.
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
