Power of attorney must be strictly construed according to its purpose; sale exceeding limited authority conferred is voidable and purchasers with knowledge of restrictions cannot claim protection.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

1.This Civil Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for the reliefs (a) to cancel the sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 fraudulently executed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff in favour of the 3rd and 4th Defendants and registered before the 5th Defendant as Document No.1186 of 2017 in respect of the Plaint Schedule A property; (b) to direct the 3rd and 4th Defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the Plaint schedule A property to the Plaintiff; (c) to cancel the General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Defendant and registered before the 5th Defendant as Document No.3663/2016 in respect of the Plaint schedule A property; d) to declare the Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016 entered between the Plaintiff and the 1^st defendant in respect of the Plaint Schedule ‘A’ property as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff; and e) to direct the 1^st defendant to pay compensation to the Plaintiff for demolishing the existing residential building in the Plaint Schedule ‘A’ property worth of Rs.25,00,000/- on the false pretext of constructing new apartment as per the Joint Venture dated 06.10.2016; or alternatively (i) Specific performance of the Sale Agreement dated 06.10.2016 and to direct the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant to execute and register the Sale Deed in respect of Plaint Schedule ‘B’ property in favour of the Plaintiff or his nominee, failing which, to direct its Register to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the Plaint Schedule ‘B’ property in favour of the Plaintiff or his nominee within a time stipulated by this Court; (ii) to direct the 1^st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.77,00,000/- to the Plaintiff towards the balance Sale Consideration of the Schedule ‘A’ property along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the Plaint till date of realization; and (iii) to declare that the registered Mortgage Deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 6^th defendant under the registered Mortgage Deed dated 25.05.2016 registered as Doc.No.1897 of 2016 before the Sub Registrar Office, Sembium in respect of the Schedule B mentioned Suit property as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the alternative prayers (i) and (iii) were deleted as per the order dated 07.02.2025 in pursuance to the memo dated 07.02.2025.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:-

The Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the ‘A’ schedule property and the same was purchased through a Sale Deed dated 28.12.1991 and he had constructed a residential house admeasuring to an extent of 700 sq. ft. and resided there for more than 25 years and was in absolute and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the Plaintiff has intended to construct and develop the ‘A’ schedule property into residential apartments and the 1^st defendant represented that he has expertise and wherewithal to develop the ‘A’ schedule property on his own fund in a Joint Venture basis. Considering the age of the Plaintiff, he also accepted for the said Joint Venture and they mutually fixed a sum of Rs.1,65,00,000/- as a total value of the Schedule A property and entered into a Joint Venture Agreeme