Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15255

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.VADAMALAI, J.
Kalyani Sundari - Appellant
Versus
Sudhagar - Respondent
S.A(MD)No.88 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD)No.2372 of 2019
Decided on : 06-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For the Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For the Respondent: Mr.M.P.Senthil

The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and failure to join necessary parties or seek cancellation of a disputed document results in dismissal of the suit.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Plaintiff claimed ownership based on a sale deed, but alleged a forged power of attorney was used to sell the property to the defendant - The first appellate court dismissed the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties and failure to prove forgery. (Paras 1, 10, 20)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101 and 103 - Burden of proof lies on the party asserting facts - Plaintiff failed to prove the alleged forgery of the power of attorney, and did not seek cancellation of the power deed. (Paras 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff inherited property from her deceased husband and claimed possession, but a power of attorney was allegedly forged to sell it to the defendant. The plaintiff did not join necessary parties in her suit.

Findings of Court:
The first appellate court correctly found the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiff failed to establish her claim of forgery.

Issues: Whether the suit was rightly dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and failure to seek cancellation of the power of attorney.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, who failed to prove her case or join necessary parties, affirming the first appellate court's dismissal of her suit.

Result: This Second Appeal is dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The suit was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties (Udayar and Sivalingam) because their presence is required for the effective adjudication of the dispute regarding the execution of the power of attorney (!) (!) . - The plaintiff failed to prove the alleged forgery of the power of attorney as per Sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872, since she did not obtain an expert opinion or file the results of her police complaint (!) (!) . - A plaintiff cannot be entitled to a declaration of title and permanent injunction without seeking the cancellation or declaration of nullity of the disputed power of attorney deed (!) (!) . - A registered document is prima facie valid, and the burden lies on the party asserting forgery to substantiate the claim with proper evidence (!) (!) . - The First Appellate Court correctly reversed the trial court's decree and dismissed the suit for failure to discharge the initial burden of proof (!) (!) . - The Second Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2018 (!) . - The defendant is considered a bonafide purchaser, and the plaintiff's claim of exclusive possession was not supported as the defendant was in possession and revenue records were mutated in his name (!) (!) .

What is the legal consequence of non-joinder of necessary parties in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction?

What are the rights of a plaintiff to seek declaration of title without seeking cancellation of a disputed power of attorney?

What is the burden of proof on a party asserting that a registered document is forged?

JUDGMENT :

P.VADAMALAI, J.

This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 08.02.2018 passed in A.S.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 29.02.2016 made in O.S.No.249 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Boothapandi.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.249 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Boothapandi.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in O.S.No.249 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Boothapandi.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is measuring 5.58 cents comprised in new R.S.No.747/4A 45, Teachers Colony, Shenbagaramanpudur Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The plaintiff’s husband Sudalaikannu purchased the suit property from its original owner Sankarji through registered sale deed, dated 24.05.1996. The plaintiff and the said Sudalaikannu have no issue out of wedlock. Sudalaikannu died intestate on 29.10.2006, leaving the plaintiff and her mother-in-law Chellathai as legal heirs. Chellathai died on 29.12.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. So, the plaintiff planned to sell the suit property. On obtaining encumbrance, she learnt that one Sivalingam purchased the suit property from one Udayar as the power of attorney of the plaintiff and her mother-in-law on the basis of the alleged power deed. The plaintiff and her mother-in-law never executed any power of attorney in favour of Udayar at any point of time. He might have forged it. The plaintiff is in possession of suit property which stood in her husband’s name. Hence, the plaintiff lodged a police complaint against Udayar, Sivalingam and others. Knowing these facts, the defendant purchased the suit property from Sivalingam under sale deed, dated 11.02.2009. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. It is the case of the defendant that the suit property originally belonged to Sudalaikannu. After his death, the plaintiff and the mother of Sudalaikannu namely Chellathai executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Udayar under document No.488/2007. Prior to her death, the said Udayar sold the suit property to one Sivalaingam through registered sale deed under document No.1731/2007. From the said Sivalingam, the defendant purchased the suit property through registered sale deed, dated 11.02.2009 under document No.2519/2009. So, the defendant is bonafide purchaser. The suit is bad for non-joinder of Udayar and Sivalingam as parties for arriving fair decision. The plaintiff is well aware of execution of power of attorney. The defendant is the lawful owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has no title or right over the suit property and hence, she is not entitled to any decree as sought in the suit.

6. The trial Court has framed the following issues:

(1) Whether it is correct that the suit property is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

(4) Whether the defendant is bonafide purchaser of the suit property?

(5) Whether it is correct that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as stated by the defendant?

(6) To what other relief with costs the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. During trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15. On the defendant's side, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6.

8. After hearing both, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi decreed the suit in O.S.No.249 of 2012 by passing judgment and decree dated 29.02.2016. Aggrieved by the judgment and decre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document