Recently, the Madras High Court dismissed a suit filed by Non Resident Indian plaintiffs seeking to cancel a registered sale deed executed through a Power of Attorney, holding that the challenge was barred by limitation and unsupported by evidence of fraud. Declining to unsettle a long-concluded transaction, the Court made a pointed observation that mere allegations cannot override a duly registered document executed through proper legal procedure.
Brief Facts:
The dispute concerned an immovable property situated in Chennai, claimed to be owned by the second plaintiff, an NRI. In order to manage the property in India, she executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her father. Acting under this authority, the father executed a registered sale deed dated 06 July 2007 in favour of the first defendant corporation. Several years later, in 2012, the plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title, cancellation of the sale deed, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction, alleging that the transaction was fraudulent.
The plaintiffs contended that no sale consideration was paid, that documents were fabricated, and that the Power of Attorney holder was suffering from cancer and was not mentally or physically fit to execute the deed. The defendants, on the other hand, relied on the registered sale deed, banking records, and the long delay in filing the suit to resist the claims.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the sale deed was the result of fraud, forgery, coercion, and misuse of the Power of Attorney. It was submitted that the defendants had abused the trust reposed in them, misappropriated cheques belonging to the second plaintiff, and secured the sale deed without paying any consideration. The plaintiffs further contended that the Power of Attorney holder was seriously ill at the relevant time and incapable of understanding the transaction. On limitation, it was argued that the cause of action arose only in 2012, when the plaintiffs allegedly came to know about the fraudulent sale, and therefore the suit was within time.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The defendants countered by asserting that the sale deed was executed by a duly authorised Power of Attorney holder, was properly registered, and was supported by valid consideration paid through banking channels. They submitted that the Power of Attorney holder was a retired Sub-Registrar, whose identity and capacity were verified at the time of registration. The defendants argued that the plea of delayed knowledge was an afterthought and that the suit, filed more than five years after execution of the sale deed, was clearly barred by limitation. All allegations of fraud, forgery, and impersonation were categorically denied.
Observations of the Court:
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the evidence on record and found that the execution and registration of the sale deed were not in dispute. The Court noted that the Power of Attorney holder was properly identified during registration and that there was no contemporaneous material to suggest incapacity at the relevant time. Importantly, the Court relied on the testimony of bank officials, who confirmed that the cheques towards sale consideration were issued by the second plaintiff and honoured after due verification of signatures.
Applying Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held that oral assertions of fraud and non-payment could not be used to contradict the terms of a registered document. The Bench also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of discovering the transaction only in 2012, observing that such a plea was implausible given the close familial relationship between the second plaintiff and the Power of Attorney holder. The Court emphasised that bald allegations, without cogent proof, cannot dislodge the legal sanctity attached to registered conveyances.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by limitation and that the sale deed dated 06.07.2007 was valid, genuine, and supported by consideration. The plaintiffs failed to establish fraud, forgery, or illegality, and were therefore not entitled to any declaratory or consequential reliefs. The ratio emerging from the judgment is that a duly registered sale deed executed by an authorised Power of Attorney holder carries strong evidentiary value and cannot be invalidated by unsubstantiated allegations or belated claims of fraud.
Case Title: Mr. K. P. Jayaram, and Anr. Vs. M/s. Radha Exports India Pvt and Ors.
Case No.: CS No. 66 of 2013
Coram: Hon'ble Dr.Justice R.N.Manjula
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. T.V.Vineeth Kumar,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. R.V.R.Deenadayalan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
