A Power of Attorney executed solely for maintenance does not authorize sale, rendering associated sale deeds invalid. The court upheld that claims pertaining to property title may be barred by limitation depending on knowledge of the settlement deed.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

1. This appeal suit has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No. 58 of 2016 on the file of the first Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 04.12.2019, wherein the appellant herein has filed the suit for declaration declaring his title of the suit property and for recovery of possession and to declare that settlement deed dated 08.02.2005 is null and void. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. As against the same, the present Appeal Suit is filed by the plaintiff.

2. The brief averments are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 22.05.2000 purchased from his vendor Rukmani Ammal through her power agent one Ramalingam for valuable consideration. The said power agent Ramalingam is none other than the son in law of the Rukmani Ammal and the plaintiff is the son in law of said Ramalingam. After the sale, the vendor Rukmani Ammal requested the plaintiff to permit her to be in possession of the suit property till her lifetime and expressed her sentimental attachment and thereby the plaintiff permitted her to be in possession of the property. The plaintiff being the Doctor by profession practising in Kerala and has been residing therein. While so in the year 2010, the plaintiff came to understand that after the sale of property to him due to some misunderstanding between the Rukmani Ammal and her son in law and taking advantage of the permissive possession had executed the registered settlement deed dated 08.02.2005 in favour of her daughters namely the first to third defendants by cancelling the General Power of Attorney. Thereafter, the said Rukmani Ammal died on 11.11.2017 thereafter based on the above said settlement deed first to third defendants have sold the property to the fourth defendant on 31.01.2007.

3. On the date of settlement deed Rukmani Ammal did not have transfer of right and thereby settlement deed and sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant are not valid in the eye of law. The plaintiff purchased the property for valuable consideration and also had given the receipt for the sale price. Therefore, he filed the suit.

4. The brief facts of the written statement averments are as follows:-

The plaint averments are false. The suit property originally belongs to Rukmani Ammal through sale deed dated 17.11.1972. The said Rukmani Ammal is the mother of the first to third defendants and she executed the registered settlement deed dated 08.02.2005 in favour of the first to third defendants. Thereafter, these first to third defendants have executed the sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant on 31.07.2007 for valuable consideration. The fourth defendants is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of his purchase. The first to third defendants came to know that their mother had executed power deed dated 01.09.1975 in favour of the said Ramalingam. The said power deed was only to maintain the property alone and does not give any other rights relating to suit property. The said power deed does not contain any of the immovable properties including the suit property. The said power deed is only given to maintain the property and not to sale away the property. Therefore the sale deed dated 22.05.2000 in favou