The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a petition that challenged the judgment in which a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed. The court ruled that the plaintiff's prolonged silence of 22 years and implausible explanations regarding obtaining a copy in 2017, undermined his claim that the General Power of Attorney (GPA) was executed involuntarily, and since he did not seek to declare it null and void earlier, he cannot now succeed in obtaining a declaration of title based on a discretionary relief.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner’s brother-in-law confronted him in 1994 that he had taken a loan from Mandapu Venakteswa and was not able to repay the loan. The petitioner decided that he would sell his property to Venkteswara Rao till the loan amount was paid back. He executed and registered a GPA and the transfer of the property was done. In December, when the sister and brother-in-law were able to return the loan, the property was transferred to their name. The petitioner stated that he was coerced and forced into executing the GPA for the property owned by him. Thus, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction but the lower court dismissed the petition. Thus, aggrieved by the judgment of the lower court, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that he was compelled to sign as many as papers and thumb marks at the compulsion made by some persons and to protect the interest of the defendant and her husband only, the plaintiff signed several documents and the so-called G.P.A. alleged to be executed by the plaintiff was not at all voluntary and it was brought into existence under threat and coercion, etc. It is further contended that the plaintiff could not challenge the validity of the alleged registered G.P.A. on account of various reasons and inability and thus, he kept quiet.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the petitioner is well educated and he executed the registered G.P.A. and signed the document. It is further contended that the defendant purchased the suit land for a legitimate consideration and paid the amounts in instalments prior to the execution of the sale deed. Thus, the defendant is a bona fide purchaser of the property. It is further contended that Plaintiff did not spell out any circumstances whatsoever as to how he kept quiet when the alleged registered G.P.A. was obtained by him with coercion and force and didn’t venture to execute any other document to terminate the authority of the said G.P.A. It is argued that no prudent man would keep quiet for about 22 years when alleged G.P.A. was obtained by him by playing fraud. It is further argued that the relief of declaration is a discretionary one and the plaintiff didn’t approach the court with clean hands.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that a man of reasonable prudence would not have kept quiet for a considerable period of 22 years having signed a document in the Registrar's Office and his evidence that he obtained the copy of the document in the year 2017 is nothing but improbable and against the natural course of human conduct. The knowledge of the contents can also be attributed to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff had signed either at the compulsion, he would not have kept quiet without raising his little finger for 22 years.
The court further observed that the conduct of the plaintiff was not that of a man of reasonable prudence. When his close relatives i.e., his sister and brother-in-law did not respond properly though he allegedly helped them he would not have kept quiet without looking into the contents of the so-called registered GPA.
The court noted that the plaintiff, admittedly, did not seek to declare the so-called GPA as null and void or vitiated by fraud and undue influence. On the other hand, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property. As this Court already pointed out the plaintiff had every knowledge about the nature of the document and the contents of the document and he kept silent throughout. The court held that when the evidence on record reveals that the plaintiff miserably failed to probabalize his contention that GPA was vitiated as it was not executed voluntarily, he cannot support his contention based on the so-called small discrepancy between the evidence as to the manner in which consideration was paid. The relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff is a discretionary one. It is a case where he kept quiet all through for about 22 or 23 years having executed the GPA. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot succeed based on the weakness of the defendant.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition with costs and upheld the impugned Judgment.
Case Title: Vuppu Veera Venkata Subba Rao vs. Borra Padmaja Rao
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
Case No.: Appeal Suit No.1569 OF 2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. V. Venugopala Rao
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sunkara Rajendra Prasad
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
