Back
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
AYYAMMAL – Appellant
Versus
D. RAJENDRAN – Respondent
SA(MD) 314 2023
POWER OF ATTORNEY - CANCELLATION - EFFECT - SALE DEED EXECUTED BY POWER AGENT - VALIDITY - LIMITATION - ORDER 2 RULE 2 OF CPC - APPLICABILITY - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND INJUNCTION - RELIEF OF CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED NOT SOUGHT - SUBSEQUENT SUIT FOR SAME RELIEF - MAINTAINABILITY - ORDER 2 RULE 2 OF CPC - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She claimed that she had executed a general power of attorney deed in favor of the defendant, but it was intended only as a security and not to be acted upon. She alleged that the defendant had executed a sale deed in favor of a third party without her knowledge or consent. The defendant contended that the sale deed was executed in pursuance of the general power of attorney deed and that the plaintiff had no right, title, or interest in the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale deed was valid and that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. The plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court confirmed the trial court's judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the sale deed was valid because it was executed when the general power of attorney deed was still in force. The Court also held that the plaintiff's subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC because she had not sought the relief of cancellation of the sale deed in her earlier suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale deed executed by the power agent was valid? 2. Whether the plaintiff's subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A sale deed executed by a power agent is valid if it is executed when the general power of attorney deed is still in force.2. A subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC if the plaintiff had not sought the relief of cancellation of the sale deed in an earlier suit.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal and confirmed the judgments of the courts below.
S.A(MD)Nos.314 and 660 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
S.A(MD)Nos.314 and 660 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.7081 and 15562 of 2023
S.A(MD)No.314 of 2023
Ayyammal
...Appellant
-Vs-
D.Rajendran
... Respondent
PRAYER
: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2019 passed in
A.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court, Tenkasi,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2016 passed in O.S.No.66 of
2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi and to allow the
second appeal.
For Appellant
: Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent
: Mr.S.S.Thesigan
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)Nos.314 and 660 of 2023
S.A(MD)No.660 of 2023
Ayyammal
...Appellant
-Vs-
1.Sankar Timber Depot,
Represented by its Partner,
Vishanji L.Patel
S/o.Valkabai,
Door No.291, Nehru Timber Market,
Chennai-112.
2.Anand V.Patel
3.M.Muthukumar
4.D.Rajendran
5.Shiv Timber Industries,
Door No.1/918, Courtralam Road,
Piranoor Border,
Shencottai Taluk,
Represented by its Partners,
Prakash V.Patel and
Tulsi A.Patel
Both sons of K.Patel
Door No.1/920, Courtralam Road,
Piranoor Border,
Vallam Village,
Shencottai Taluk.
6.Suresh K.Patel
7.Sakthivel
8.Tamilvel
... Respondents
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)Nos.314 and 660 of 2023
PRAYER
: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2019 passed in
A.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court, Tenkasi,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2016 passed in O.S.No.131 of
2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi and to allow the
second appeal.
For Appellant
: Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Thesigan
COMMON JUDGMENT
SA(MD)No.314 of 2023 is filed challenging the concurrent judgments in
A.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Tenkasi and in
O.S.No.66 of 2009 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi.
2. SA(MD) No.660 of 2023 is filed challenging the concurrent judgments
in A.S.No.44 of 2017 on file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tenkasi and
in O.S.No.131 of 2010 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tenkasi.
3. The appellant is the plaintiff in both the cases. The suit in O.S.No.66 of
2009 was filed against the respondent/defendant Rajendran seeking the relief of
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)Nos.314 and 660 of 2023
permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the
appellant/plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit in
O.S.No.131 of 2009 was filed by the appellant /plaintiff against i) Sankar Timber
Depot ii) Anand V.Patel iii) M.Muthukuamr iv) Rajendran v) Shiv Timber
Industries vi) Suresh K.Patel, vii) Sakthivel and viii) Tamilvel seeking the relief
of declaration that the sale deed dated 14.08.2000 executed by the second
defendant in favour of first defendant is null and void and for permanent
injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with her
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property in both cases is
one and the same.
4. It is seen from the plaint averments in O.S.No.66 of 2009 that the
plaintiff claims that the suit property is originally belonged to (i) Arunachalam (ii)
Nainar (iii) Puranam and (iv) Challappa. They have sold the suit property to the
plaintiff on 10.05.1995. The plaintiff constructed a residential building in the suit
property and established a saw mill in the name of Sri Murugan Saw Mill. She
has been running the saw mill from the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
