Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR
Cuddalore Power Company Limited, Now Cuddalore Power Gen. Corporation – Appellant
Versus
G.Pushpagandhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The appellant is the defendant in the suit who had last before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendant as mentioned in the suit.
2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendant who is Cuddalore Power Company Limited represented by its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The suit property is situated in new S.No.196/1 measuring an extent of2.27.0 hectares out of 6.06.0 hectares and patta No.747 related to old S.Nos.394 and 395/2 in Kudikkadu village in Cuddalore District. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of their right and title over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff contended that they are in possession and they have absolute title over the suit property whereas the defendant is the registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 having their Head Office at Chennai.
(ii).The defendant had proposed to construct Electricity Production Unit at Cuddalore Taluk for which
A sale deed executed under coercion, influenced by government circulars limiting sales, is void, affirming the right to property under Article 300A.
The court held that a sale deed remains valid despite non-payment of consideration, affirming ownership rests with the purchaser as per registered transaction under the Transfer of Property Act.
The sale deed executed without valid payment consideration is deemed sham, preventing any title transfer, establishing that property ownership remains with original heirs under the valid Will.
Valid sale deeds can only be challenged through competent court orders; transactions executed in violation of interim injunctions are treated as void.
A declaration of property ownership requires establishing possession; without it, claims regarding related deeds are insufficient.
The suit was rejected as it did not disclose a cause of action, reaffirming that non-payment of the entire sale consideration does not invalidate a sale deed.
Subsequent purchasers cannot assert defenses of the original vendor without seeking leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC, especially when the original sale deeds have been canceled.
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
