A principal is deemed a party to a sale deed executed by their authorized agent under a valid power of attorney, requiring appropriate court fee valuation under the relevant Act. Failure of the principal to testify personally regarding alleged fraud or unauthorized actions undermines the challenge to the sale.

Judgment

1.This second appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 17.10.2014 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, however, the respondents 1 and 2 have preferred the first appeal as against the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.57 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Special Judge, Puducherry dated 06.03.2013. In fact, the appellant herein being the plaintiff, has filed the above suit for declaration seeking to declare the sale deed dated 31.07.2006, executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void and to consequently cancel the same and to pass a decree of permanent injunction from their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men and agents or anyone claiming under them from creating any encumbrance over the suit property. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred the first appeal, wherein the first appellate Court had allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order of the trial Court.

2. The brief averments of the plaintiff are as follows:

2.1. The suit property absolutely belongs to the plaintiff through a sale deed dated 29.03.1995 and thereafter, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff is employed at Embassy of Beharin at Kuwait and the family members of the plaintiff are residing in Kottakuppam. The first defendant is a known person to the plaintiff, who is working at the Xerox shop of the plaintiff. The first defendant used to borrow paltry sums from the plaintiff whenever he used to visit family members of the plaintiff and also stood as a guarantor for the plaintiff’s loan obtained from the erstwhile Nedungadu Bank subsequently amalgamated with Punjab National Bank for purchase of a Xerox machine. Therefore, the plaintiff trusted the first defendant. Since the plaintiff was in Kuwait, in order to maintain his property, he executed a power of attorney dated 18.03.2000 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property.

2.2. Thereafter, when the plaintiff came to India he gathered information that the first defendant had sold the property without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent by fraudulently conniving with the 2^nd defendant as if the original parent document had been lost. The plaintiff also came to know that the first defendant had lodged a false complaint at the Kalapet Police Station as if the original title deeds were not traceable. The defendants 1 to 3 conspired together and have fraudulently fabricated the documents. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 19.09.2006 to the defendants 1 and 2 and a reply notice dated 27.09.2006 was issued as if the first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the third defendant through a sale deed dated 31.07.2006. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration seeking to declare the sale deed dated 31.07.2006 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men and agents or anyone claiming under them from creating any encumbrance of the suit property