Registered Power of Attorney presumed valid under S.114(e) Evidence Act unless fraud specifically pleaded and proved; lack of Tamil literacy and attesting witness ignorance insufficient to invalidate.

JUDGMENT :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

The above Appeal suit has been filed challenging the Judgement and decree dated 07.06.2017 made in O.S.No.498 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Coimbatore.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, by the virtue of the Sale Deed dated 09.06.2003. According to the plaintiff, his friend, one Mr. Karthik, had approached the 2^nd defendant seeking financial assistance and had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-. At the request of the said Mr. Karthik, the plaintiff agreed to stand as a surety for the said loan. Subsequently the 2^nd defendant, in turn, insisted that the plaintiff has to hand over the original title deeds of the suit property and further execute a mortgage deed as security for the said loan. Subsequently the Plaintiff had handed over the original Title documents to the 2^nd defendant and executed the alleged mortgage deed. Thereafter, when the plaintiff was unable to contact the said Karthik. When he applied for an Encumbrance Certificate for the Suit Property, upon which only when he came to know about that the document executed by him was not a Mortgage Deed, but in fact a Power of Attorney in favour of the 1^st defendant, who is closely associated with the 2^nd defendant. The plaintiff further came to know that the 2^nd defendant had entered into a sale agreement with the 1^st defendant within three months from the date of execution of the said Power of Attorney. It was further stated that the Plaintiff can read and write only three languages, namely, English, Hindi, and Sanskrit.

3. The plaintiff further states that the Sale Agreement was registered in the year 2010 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, however, the Sale Deed came to be executed only on 20.11.2013 in favour of the 2^nd defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-, which amount was wholly received by the 1^st defendant. The plaintiff submits that the aforesaid transaction was never disclosed to him, and had further asserted that he had never executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1^st defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff contends that the 2^nd defendant has no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property and is not entitled to retain the original title deeds.Further when the plaintiff had issued a notice dated 06.08.2014 to both the defendants, calling upon them to cancel the invalid Sale Deed and to return the original title deeds, the defendants sent separate replies to the said notice and upon scrutiny of the same it was evident that both the replies were issued by the same counsel and on the same date with similar contents, thereby indicating collusion between the defendants. From the said replies, it is seen that the defendants have categorically asserted that the Sale Deed was duly and validly executed, and that the 2^nd defendant was the rightful owner of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking, inter alia, cancellation of the said Sale Deed

4. On the other hand, from the defendants’ side, the 1st defendant did not contest the suit, the 2nd defendant filed a written statement contending that he had no prior knowledge of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant in his Statement has further asserted that it was the 1st defendant who had approached him and requested him to sign as a witness to a document, which was duly complied by him. It is averred that, in November 2009, the first defendant informed th