A Power of Attorney holder cannot assert rights over a property after executing a sale deed that transfers ownership, and claims contrary to a registered deed lack legal standing.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2018 in O.S.No.5353 of 2016 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that on

24.02.2009, the owner of the property, S.Suresh had executed Power of Attorney in favour of K.Shankar S/o.Kannan by a registered document bearing Doc.No.456 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam. It is his submission that the said Power of Attorney was executed only for the purpose of sale of the property by the Power of Attorney Agent and it was for the limited purpose of execution of the sale deed.

3.The deed of General Power of Attorney dated 24.02.2009, in clause 6 is extracted hereunder:-

To appoint any agents advocates attorney on my behalf to cause the schedule mentioned property to be sold.

4.Accordingly, on 25.03.2011, the said K.Shankar, Power of Attroney Agent of S.Suresh, sold the suit property to R.Shankaran Gargh through a registered sale deed herein Doc.No.1208/2011 dated 25.03.2011 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar. On 06.07.2016, the said R.Shankaran Gargh executed Power of Attorney in favour of another P.Shankar, S/o.V.Palani, bearing Doc.No.3144/16 on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Anna Nagar. The said Power of Attorney, P.Shankar, S/o.V.Palani, Power of Attorney Agent of R.Shankaran Gargh had executed sale deed in favour of V.Mathiyalagan and his wife Ramya through a registered sale deed registered as Doc.No.5454/2016 dated 19.12.2016 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar. After such sale, the Power of Attorney of the original owner, S.Suresh as Plaintiff, not as Power of Attorney Agent of the original owner but in his individual capacity had filed the suit in O.S.No.5353 of 2016 for bare injunction against R.Shankaran Gargh, to whom he had sold the property.

5.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.14206 of 2016 in O.S.No.5353 of 2016, in which the 1st Revision Petitioner, Mr.V.Mathiyalagan and his wife Ramya are not parties. Without the original owner, the Power of Attorney himself had filed the suit as though he was in possession. Whereas, the property was sold as per sale deed dated 19.12.2016. The suit was filed on 21.10.2016. Therefore, on the date of the filing of the suit, the property was not in possession of K.Shankar S/o.Kannan, the Plaintiff. V.Mathiyalagan, the 1st Revision Petitioner herein, is not at all the Defendant and the possession was handed over as per the recitals in the sale deed under Doc.No.5454/2016. After one week of the registration of the sale deed, the suit had been instituted against the original owner by a person claiming to be in possession. Therefore, there is no cause of action, the 1st Revision Petitioner herein V.Mathiyalagan and his wife Ramya are not at all Defendants in the suit. Also, the suit had been filed suppressing the fact that the sale deed is in favour of V.Mathiyalagan and his wife Ramya by a Power of Attorney Agent of R.Shankaran Gargh.

6.Also, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is as follows:-

“Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.

When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:

Proviso (1). -- Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality,