A power of attorney cannot be exercised after the principal's death regarding their property; knowledge of a sale date affects limitation periods.

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiruppur in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.144 of 2023 dated 03.04.2024.

2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The 1st defendant, namely one G.N.Leo Fernandez, was the Power of Attorney of four sisters, namely Ponnammal, Thulasiammal, Sarasammal and Devathal/1st plaintiff. They obtained the property from the original owner one Marathal on her death on 19.09.1990. They executed an agreement of sale in favour of one G.N.Leo Fernandez on 09.12.1998.

3. Sarasammal died intestate on 10.12.2003. Thereafter, Ponnammal died on 05.04.2016, and Thulasiammal also died on 20.08.2016. Out of all four sisters, Devathal alone is alive. They would plead that G.N.Leo Fernandez/1st defendant had alienated several plots in a layout called “Cinema Nagar” through several deeds including the impugned sale deed dated 12.11.2010. They would state that since the sale deed was executed after the death of the Principal, the sale deeds, dated 12.11.2010 and 16.11.2010, executed by G.N.Leo Fernandez in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 are null and void.

4. On being served with the summons, the defendants took out an application for rejection of plaint stating that the suit is barred by time as well as that there is no cause of action for the suit. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiruppur dismissed the said application.

Hence, the present revision has been preferred before this Court.

5. Heard Mr.P.Veeraraghavan, appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

6. Mr.P.Veeraraghavan would submit as follows :

(1) The Power of Attorney, dated 09.12.1998, is a power one coupled with interest.

(2) The principals had received the entire sale consideration and also executed a sale receipt for the same.

(3) The plea that they came to know about the sale deed, which was executed in 2010, only in the year 2022, is a figment of their imagination, and it is a pleading of a false cause of action.

7. The principle of law insofar as the rejection of plaint is concerned, I have to take the averments made in the plaint to be true and thereafter, test whether the plaint has cause of action or whether it is barred by limitation.

8. Insofar as the plea of limitation is concerned, the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that they came to know about the sale deed, which had been impugned in the suit, only in the year 2022 and that too, when they approached the document writer to enter into a partition deed inter se between the plaintiffs. Therefore, the date of knowledge would have to be treated as the commencement of limitation. If the year 2022 is treated as the date of knowledge, therefore, the suit filed immediately thereafter cannot be treated as barred by time.

9. Insofar as the plea of cause of action is concerned, the factum that Sarasammal died on 10.12.2003 had been substantiated by the production of the death certificate and the legal heirship certificate. Similarly, the deaths of Ponnammal and Thulasiammal have also been substantiated by way of production of their respective death certificates and the legal heirship certificates.

10. Insofar as Ponnammal, Thulasiammal and Devathal are concerned, they were alive on the date of execution of the impugned sale deeds. However, it is not in dispute that Sarasammal passed away seven years before the execution of the document. The argument of Mr.P.Veeraraghavan that the Power of Attorney is one coupled with interest is not conceded in the plaint. Whether the Power of Attorney is one coupled with interest or not would necessarily have to be gone into by the learned trial Judge at the time of final disposal of the case.

11. Suffice it to say, for the rejection of plaint, the defence taken by one G.N.Leo Fernandez and the purchasers from him, namely defendant Nos.2 and 3, is totally irrelevant.

12. A reading of the plaint shows that Sarasammal died on the date of execution of the do