Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
M.VANITHA – Appellant
Versus
SMT J.DEIVANAI – Respondent
Fraud - Property Dispute - Indian Trust Act, 1882, Section 88; Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 215 - Summary: The court evaluated claims regarding property ownership, fraud in execution proceedings, and agent authority. It underscored agents' fiduciary obligations, the presumption of valid court actions, and limitations on challenges to decrees obtained by perceived fraud, leading to dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property based on historical acquisitions and trust formation while alleging fraud in a sale deed executed by their former power of attorney. They sought declarations to invalidate prior deeds and prevent further dispossession.
Issues: The key issues centered on the authority of the agent to sell after revocation of the power of attorney, the validity of the decree claimed to be fraudulent, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied principles ensuring that agents act in fiduciary capacities and established that judicial acts carry presumptive validity unless conclusively rebutted. It ruled against the plaintiffs for failing to demonstrate any fraud that voided the deeds.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit is dismissed.
JU D G M E N T
The plaintiff in O.S.No.13788 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional/City Civil Court, Chennai are the appellants. The appellants as plaintiffs filed a civil suit in Tr.C.S.No.575 of 2007 on the file of this Court as against the respondents/defendants claiming the following reliefs.
a) For a declaration that the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property situate at Door Nos.7 and 9, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041 comprised in Survey Nos. 111/20 and
111/22, measuring an extent of 2,400 sq.ft. or there about, within the registration Sub-district of Saidapet and registration district of Chennai South, more fully described in the plaint Schedule given hereunder, b) For a declaration that the Sale deed dated 03.02.1984 and registered as document No.226 of 1984 in the Office of the District Registrar, Saidapet, Madras South, executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and it shall not bind the plaintiffs herein and consequently, declare the same as illegal and invalid.
c) For a declaration that the decree dated 17.04.1985 secured by the
1st defendant as against the 3rd and 4th defendants herein in O.S.No.919 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and it shall not bind the plaintiffs herein and consequently, declare the same as illegal, invalid and void abi-nitio. d) For a declaration that the possession of the suit property situate at Door Nos.7 and 9, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041 comprised in Survey Nos. 111/20 and 111/22, measuring an extent of
2,400 sq.ft. or there about, within the registration Sub-district of Saidapet and registration district of Chennai South, more fully described in the Schedule hereunder, secured by the 1st defendant pursuant to the decree/order dated 07.03.2005 made in E.A No.2656 of 1989 in E.P.No.3448 of 1988 and O.S.No.919 of 1984 on the file of X Asst. City Civil Court, Madras is nothing but a fraud on the Court and also on the plaintiffs 2-5 herein.
e) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 & 2, their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them or authorized by them from interfering with the 1st plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situate at Door Nos.7 and 9, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041 comprised in Survey Nos. 111/20 and 111/22, measuring an extent of 2,400 sq.ft. or there about, within the registration Sub-district of Saldapet and registration District of Chennai South, more fully described in the plaint Schedule given hereunder.
f) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 & 2, their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them or authorized by them from alienating or encumbering or dealing with the suit property situate at Door Nos.7 and 9, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041 comprised in Survey Nos. 111/20 and 111/22, measuring an extent of 2,400 sq.ft. or there about, within the registration Sub-district of Saidapet and registration district of Chennai South, more fully described in the plaint Schedule given hereunder, in favour of any third party either by way of Sale, mortgage, lease, joint development or otherwise.
2. Issues were framed and on the side of the plaintiff, 1st and
4th plaintiff were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A43 were filed. D2 examined himself and examined one P.K. Masthan as DW2 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B59.
3. The Trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as mentioned before the trial Court.
Facts:
4. The plaintiff case is that, one Kalavai Narayanaswami Chettiar acquired a larger extent of property measuring an extent of 24 gr
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
