Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VADAMALAI, J
D.Ravichandran – Appellant
Versus
G.N.Baskaran – Respondent
S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 | M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Chandrasekaran
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Vallinayagam
The court upheld the validity of plaintiffs' claims regarding fraudulent documents, confirming that the suit was timely filed and correctly valued, dismissing the appeal by the first defendant.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Second Appeal against the judgment confirming the decree of lower courts regarding the validity of a power of attorney and sale deed, which the plaintiffs allege to be forged. The courts found that plaintiffs filed the suit timely and correctly valued the suit property. The defendants failed to prove the genuineness of the documents. (Paras 17, 21)
(B) Limitation - The suit is held not barred by limitation as plaintiffs proved rightful possession and timely action upon learning of alleged forgery, thus rejecting defendants’ argument. (Paras 17.1, 22)
(C) Concurrent Findings - The court acclaimed that appeals court respects the decisions of lower courts unless substantial law errors are present; the concurrent findings were well substantiated. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs purchased property in 1990 and later claimed a power of attorney abused by the defendants to execute fraudulent documents. The first defendant contended possession and proper documentation, while plaintiffs alleged forgery.
Findings of Court:
The courts affirmed the plaintiffs' position and established that the defendants could not validate their contested documents.
Issues: The main issues included validity under limitation laws, accurate court fee assessment, and the genuineness of contested documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined failure of the first defendant to establish the authenticity of the documents.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed; judgment against the first defendant was upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenged the validity of the sale deed based on a forged power of attorney. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiffs established ownership and alleged fraud in property documents. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. lower courts maintained suit validity; key issues regarding limitation and parties addressed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. emphasis on burden of proof on defendants to validate documents claimed to be forged. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. high court upheld the lower courts' findings; appeal dismissed. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2013 passed in A.S.No.210 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai (Melur camp), confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2010 and amended decree, dated 12.10.2011, passed in O.S.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.
2. The appellant is the first defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the second respondent is the second defendant in O.S.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.
3. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the power of attorney deed, dated 03.10.2002 in favour of the second defendant and that the sale deed, dated 28.11.2002 in favour of the first defendant are not binding on the plaintiffs and for directing the first defendant to hand over the documents mentioned in 'A' schedule and for permanent injunction.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in O.S.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.
5. Case of the plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs jointly purchased the suit property from one S.P.Maharajan, son of Pandyamabalm and others under registered sale deed, dated 29.06.1990. The first plaintiff was entitled to 2/3rd share and the second plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share. The plaintiffs and their mother, Pushpam, had run a partnership oil store in the name of Vignesh Corporation under cash credit facility of Rs.3,00,000/- from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Madurai. They executed a memorandum of deposit title deeds in respect of 'A' schedule property with the bank. As the partnership ended in loss, the bank filed a suit in O.S.No.609 of 2001 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai. The first defendant is known to the plaintiffs for more than a decade, so the first plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the first defendant during 1998. At the time of borrowing the loan, the first defendant forced the plaintiffs to sign blank promissory notes and unfilled blank stamp papers. Later in order to grab the plaintiffs’ property, the first defendant demanded the first plaintiff to execute sale deed by creating forged sale agreement by using signed unfilled blank stamp papers. The first plaintiff took the issue to the District Crime Branch Police, Madurai and the first defendant was advised to act as per law. In the month of May 2003, the first defendant with henchmen came to the suit property and attempted to trespass into the same, which was prevented. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendants created a forged power of attorney, dated 03.10.2002, forging the signatures of the plaintiffs in favour of the second defendant, who in turn executed sale deed, dated 28.11.2002, in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant collected title deeds from the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank in collusion with the bank manager. Hence, the first plaintiff lodged a police complaint against the defendants and the bank manager. In the meanwhile, the second plaintiff conveyed his 1/3 share in favour of the first plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.
6. Case of the Defendant
The suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has undervalued the suit property and paid the incorrect court-fee. The averment that the first defendant is known to the plaintiffs for more than a decade is correct, but the first defendant is doing money lendin
