Back
P. VADAMALAI
Gurusamy – Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi Co-operative Building Society Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P. Vadamalai, J.
1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2015 passed in A.S. No. 21 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2013 passed in O.S. No. 126 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.
2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is a plaintiff in O.S. No. 126 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff in alternative directing the defendants to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in O.S. No. 126 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
4. Case of the plaintiff:
The plaintiff is the A.1362 Meenakshi Cooperative Building Society Limited, which was registered in the year 1939 and at present it is registered under the Ta
The court affirmed that fraudulent sale deeds do not confer valid title, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud, especially in fiduciary relationships.
The court affirmed that a sale deed executed with authority is valid unless fraud or coercion is proven, and claims must be filed within a statute of limitations.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting facts, with claims of forgery regarding a registered power of attorney necessitating all relevant parties to be joined to the suit for effective adjudi....
A power of attorney does not confer title to property; fraudulent sales executed by an agent without the principal's consent are invalid under the Benami Transactions Act.
The court annulled a sale deed executed under fraudulent circumstances, affirming that a seller lacking exclusive rights cannot validly transfer property.
Fraud must be established by clear evidence; a sale deed executed for valid consideration is valid and cannot be canceled without substantial proof of misrepresentation.
The application of Section 17 of the Limitation Act to protect the rights of a party defrauded from lapse of time until they remain in ignorance of the fraud, and the presumption of validity of a reg....
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
