R.M. Sethu vs Herbert Sundaram - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2490

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2490

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.SESHASAYEE, P.VADAMALAI
R.M. Sethu – Appellant
Versus
Herbert Sundaram – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.S. Vamsidhar, R. Aravindan
For the Respondent: T. Banumathy

Table of Content
1. ownership history and litigation attempts. (Para 1)
2. court's analysis on jurisdiction and cause of action. (Para 3 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments regarding power of attorney validity. (Para 4 , 5)
4. court's decision to set aside prior order. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

N. SESHASAYEE, J.

1. This appeal is preferred challenging a decree rejecting the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) & (d) of C.P.C. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

2.1. The admitted position is that the suit property belongs to the first defendant ever since he was a minor. He has since become a citizen of Malaysia. According to the plaintiffs, on 30.12.1998, the first defendant had executed a Power of Attorney in Malaysia in favour of a certain Masilamani, and on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property under a sale deed, dated 13.07.2006. At the relevant time when the plaintiffs purchased the property, it was under the occupation of certain Ashok Kumar and the plaintiffs has obtained possession from Ashok Kumar. Notwithstanding the fact that the aforesaid sale in favour of the plaintiffs, on 24.03.2010, the first defendant executed a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document