The court affirmed the validity of a sale deed executed by an agent holding a power of attorney, finding no grounds for alleging misuse of authority when the primary agreements were not duly referenced.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2017, passed in O.S.No. 26 of 2012, by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, the defendants have preferred the appeal suit.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3.The plaintiff's case is that the first defendant is the owner of the suit property. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant. The first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- from the plaintiff's husband on 27.06.2011 and agreed to give 12 % interest for the borrowed amount. The first defendant had also executed an unregistered mortgage deed and other deeds and agreed to return the borrowed amount within one year. For security purposes, the first defendant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff's husband. As per the terms of the mortgage deed, the first defendant has to repay the borrowed amount with interest within 26.06.2012, but she failed to do so. Thereafter, in pursuance of the power of attorney deed executed by the first defendant, the plaintiff's husband executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 06.07.2012. In pursuance of the sale deed, the plaintiff changed her name in the revenue records and obtained patta and other relevant documents. Since the defendants failed to handover the possession, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and thus, pleaded to allow the suit.

4.The defendants contested the suit and filed a written statement and specifically denied the allegations averred in the plaint and contended that the first defendant is the owner of the property. She had purchased the property vide document No.1194/2001 and she is working as a Tahsildar, Needamangalam Taluk, Thiruvarur District. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant. He was working as a conductor in Transport Corporation at Tiruvarur and thereafter, after getting voluntary retirement, he was doing contract work. While so, the second defendant required money for his business and the defendants approached the plaintiff's husband for loan. He agreed to give the loan for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and demanded to mortgage a property. For security purposes, the first defendant handed over an unregistered mortgage deed, registered power of attorney deed, unsigned SBI cheques and IOB cheques. Thereafter, received a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- on 27.06.2011 and agreed to repay the amount at 12% interest per annum. The defendants repaid the amount partly. The plaintiff failed to give a receipt for the amount that was paid. Thereafter, the plaintiff failed to acknowledge the receipt of Rs.5,50,000/- from the defendants. In this circumstances, without informing to the first defendant, in pursuance of the power of attorney executed by the first defendant, in favour of the plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff's husband entered into a sale agreement with one James Parimannan on 16.05.2012, for selling the suit property and received Rs.10,00,000/- as advance, which was registered vide document No.2408/2012. Since the agreement was not concluded after two months, the document was cancelled on 05.07.2012. Thereafter, the plaintiff's husband executed a sale deed in favour of his wife/ plaintiff. The sale deed will not bind the first defendant. The compromise between the parties failed. The suit is not maintainable and thus, pleaded to dismiss the suit.

5.The trial Court, upon the above pleadings, framed the following issues for consideration;

1.Whether is there right to get back the suit property from the defendants?

2.To what relief?

6.In support of the plaintiff's case, Pws 1 to 4 were e