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.

JUDGMENT :

R.N.MANJULA, J.

1.The suit has been filed seeking relief of declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and to declare the sale deed dated 06.07.2007 executed in favour of the 1st defendant by the 2nd plaintiff is null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the Plaint suit scheduled properties.

2.The short facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiffs are non-residential Indians. The second plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff, with an intention to settle down in India, came to India in the year 1999, and thereafter, with the money earned by him in the business which is run in India, he purchased a dwelling house, which is the suit property, through a sale deed dated 8.4.1999 executed by one Abdul Hameed s/o Zackriah. During January 2005, the 1st plaintiff received a legal notice from LG Household & Healthcare Ltd, Korea, stating that the contract between the 1st plaintiff and LG Household & Healthcare Ltd, Korea, is null and void; the president who had signed the contract are working-level officers, and they do not have any authority to sign the contract.

2.1. The first plaintiff has filed a case against LG Household & Healthcare Ltd, Korea, and the same is pending. While the plaintiffs were in India, they came into contact with the defendants 2 and 3 through the vendor of the plaint schedule property. The 1st plaintiff became very close to the 2nd defendant and trusted him blindly. The 2nd and 3rd defendants started to take undue advantage of the trust and borrowed money on various occasions for purchasing a residential flat and for investment in the 1st defendant company. The 2nd and 3rd defendants have totally borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. A sum of Rs.50,00,000/- has been borrowed through a cheque dated 1.11.2002 drawn on HSBC Bank, Chennai, and a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- has been borrowed as per the details shown under:

2.2.Out of the above Rs.1,70,00,000/- the defendants 2 and 3 paid an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- towards interest and profit share. When the plaintiffs pressed for the money back, the 2nd and 3rd defendants evaded by giving various reasons. As per the request made by the defendants 2 and 3, the 2nd plaintiff created a mortgage deposit of title deeds of the 2nd plaintiff's property in favour of the Standard Chartered Bank for a tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Though the 2nd and 3rd defendants had borrowed the above sum, they did not repay it, and hence the plaintiff could not get back the title deeds from the bank. The money was utilised by the 1st defendant business, and the plaintiffs reserved their rights to initiate separate proceedings in respect of the said amount. They are also given to understand that the 2nd plaintiff is a shareholder in the 1st defendant's company and the money is safe.

2.3.As the first plaintiff could not come to India, the 2nd plaintiff executed a power of attorney deed on 12.07.2007 by appointing her father, N. Sukumaran Nair, as her power of attorney to deal with the suit property, and the power of attorney was adjudicated in the office of