Kerala High Court
Jayaprasad B.,(Died) Lhrs Impleaded vs Vaisalini,(Died) Legal ... on 2 November, 2024
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
1
2024:KER:81246
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946
RSA NO. 1109 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 12.08.2015 IN AS NO.40 OF
2011,41OF 2011 & 42 OF 2011 OF SUB COURT KASARAGOD ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 31.03.2011 IN OS NO.356 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
1 JAYAPRASAD B.,(DIED)
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE B.RAMADAS,HOLYCROSS
VIEW,THARAITHOTA,BAJJODI, MAROLI VILLAGE,KULASHEKHARA
POST,MANGALORE-575005.
ADDL.A2 SAMITHA, AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. LATE JAYAPRASAD B, 3-72/3, FLOYL BAJJODI, MAROLI, NEAR
GOVT. COCONUT GARDEN, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU -575005.
ADDL.A3 ISHA BEKAL,AGED 25 YEARS
D/O. LATE JAYAPRASAD B, 3-72/3, FLOYL BAJJODI, MAROLI, NEAR
GOVT. COCONUT GARDEN, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU-575005.
(LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS
ADDL.A2 & A3 AS PER ORDER DATED 02.08.2024 IN IA.NO.4/2024)
BY ADVS.
T.K.SREEKALA
S.PARVATHI
ATHIRA PRASAD
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2
2024:KER:81246
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN AS 40,41, 42/2011:
1 VAISALINI,(DIED)
AGED 72 YEARS,
W/O.LATE B.RAMADAS,SATHYA DEEP,PANDESHWAR NEW ROAD,
ATTAWARA VILLAGE,MANGALORE-575-001. (APPELLANT & RESPONDENT
NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RECORDED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ORDER DATED 03.06.2024 IN MEMO DATED
26.02.2024)
2 SOORYA PRASAD.B,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.LATE B.RAMADAS,86/7,NARASAPPA BUILDING,OPP.MUNISHWARA
TEMPLE,3RD CROSS,4TH MAIN, GANGAPPA BLOCK,GANGA
NAGAR,R.T.NAGAR POST,BANGALORE-32.
3 RANJINI RAO,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.UDAYA RAO,FLAT NO.504,BLOCK C,POCKET 3,AWHO COLONY,
VIDHYA NAGAR,NEW AIR PORT ROAD,BANGALORE-562157.
4 SONA,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O/VISHWANATH P.NAIK,KENWOOD APARTMENTS,102,DR.AMBEDKAR
ROAD,OPP.STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANDRA(WEST),MUMBAI-400 050.
5 P.MOHAMMED,(DIED)
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.ANDUNNI,NAYAMMARAMOOLE,KASARAGODE KASABA VILLAGE,
P.O.VIDYA NAGAR,KASARAGODE-671123.
6 M.AHMMED,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMMED,MALAMKAI,NAKARAJE,KASARAGODE-671541.
7 ZOHRABI.P.K,
AGED 45 YEARS
D/O.HUSSAIN PADINJATH,VIDYANAGAR,KASARAGODE KASBA
VILLAGE,P.O.VIDYANAGAR,KASARAGODE-671123.
8 SAFIYA BASHEER, AGED 45 YEARS
D/O.P.MUHAMMED,VIDYANAGAR,KASRAGODE KASBA VILLAGE,
P.O.VIDYANAGAR,KASARAGODE-671123.
9 SHAMSHAD,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.MOHAMMED,EDANEER HOUSE,
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
3
2024:KER:81246
ETHIRTHODU POST, PADI VILLAGE,KASARAGODE-671541.
10 ADDL.SAFIYA,
W/O. P. MOHAMMED, NAYAMMARAMOOLE, KASARAGODE CUSBA VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR P.O,KASARAGODE-671123.
ADDL.R11 ABDUL KHADER,
S/O. P. MOHAMMED, NAYAMMARAMOOLE, KASARAGODE CUSBA VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR P.O, KASARAGODE-671123.
ADDL. R12 FATHIMA
D/O. P. MOHAMMED, NAYAMMARAMOOLE, KASARAGODE CUSBA VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR P.O, KASARAGODE-671123.
ADDL.R13 HAJIRA,
D/O. P. MOHAMMED, NAYAMMARAMOOLE, KASARAGODE CUSBA VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR P.O,KASARAGODE-671123.
ADDL.R14 ABDULLA,
S/O. P. MOHAMMED, NAYAMMARAMOOLE, KASARAGODE CUSBA VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR P.O,KASARAGODE-671123.
ADDL.R15 MISRIYA,
D/O. P. MOHAMMED, NAYAMMARAMOOLE, KASARAGODE CUSBA VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR P.O, KASARAGODE-671123.
ADDL.R16 SAKEENA,
D/O. P. MOHAMMED, NAYAMMARAMOOLE, KASARAGODE CUSBA VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR P.O, KASARAGODE-671123.
ADDL.R17 IRSHAD,
S/O. P. MOHAMMED, NAYAMMARAMOOLE, KASARAGODE CUSBA VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR P.O, KASARAGODE-671123. (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.5 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS
10 TO 17 AS PER ORDER DATED 02.08.2024 IN IA.NO.2/2024)
BY ADVS.
R1 BY NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN
R2 AND R3 BY VINEETH KOMALACHANDRAN
R4 BY N.A.SHAJI.
R5 TO R8 BY ADVS. D.KRISHNA PRASAD
MINI V.MENON
P.VISHNU PRASAD
R9 BY ADVS. P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
P.M.NEELAKANDAN
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
4
2024:KER:81246
R9 AND R10 BY ADV. P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
R9 AND R10 TO R17 BY ADV. SABU GEORGE
R10 TO R17 BY ADV.MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.10.2024,
THE COURT ON 02.11.2024,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
5
2024:KER:81246
CR
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.356/2009 is the appellant. The plaintiff filed
the suit for partition of plaint A Schedule Property into five equal
shares and for allotment of 1/5 share to the plaintiff. According to
the plaintiff, the plaint A schedule property belonged to his father
Ramdas and on the death of Ramdas in the year 1990, the plaint
schedule property devolved upon the first defendant wife and the
plaintiff & defendants 2 to 4 who are his children. The plaint
schedule property is 3.02 Acres of land comprised in Re.Sy.
No.258/3 of Paddy Village in Kasaragod Taluk.
2. In the Written Statement filed by the 1st defendant, the 1st
defendant contended that she sold the Plaint A schedule property.
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
Thereupon the plaintiff impleaded the defendants 5 to 9 in the suit.
The 5th defendant is the buyer of the Plaint A Schedule Property in
Ext.B7 Sale Deed dated 19/07/1993 executed by the 1st defendant
for herself, for the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 as their Power
of Attorney holder and for the 4th defendant as her guardian on
account of her minority. The defendants 6 to 9 are the assignees
from the 5th defendant as per Exts.B1,B2,B3 & B6. The plaintiff
amended the plaint and included a pleading that Ext.B7 Sale Deed
executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 5th defendant is
illegal and void and hence subsequent sale deeds executed by the
5th defendant in favour of the defendants 6 to 9 are also void and
liable to be ignored.
3. The defendants 2 to 4 supported the plaintiff and they also sought
for partition and separate allotment of the shares.
4. The 5th defendant filed a Written Statement contending, inter alia,
that the suit has been filed in collusion with defendants 1 to 4 to
dupe and defraud other defendants; that the plaint A schedule
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and on his
death it devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4; the
plaintiff and the 2nd & 3rd defendants executed Ext.X1 Power of
Attorney dt. 25.05.1992 in favour of the 1st defendant authorizing
her to deal with and sell their properties including plaint A schedule
property; that since the 4th defendant was a minor the 1st defendant
sold the right of the 4th defendant for valid consideration as
guardian of the 4th defendant; that the Plaint A schedule property
situated in a group village consisting of Paddy and Nekraje village;
that both the villages are set up in the same Village Office; that
there is only one Village Officer; that taking undue advantage of
non mentioning of Paddy village in the general power of attorney
executed by plaintiff and defendant 2 and 3,the suit has been filed
to dupe and defraud the defendants 5 to 9; that the 5th defendant
is a bona fide purchaser from the 1st defendant; that the relief
claimed by the plaintiff and supporting defendants are barred by
limitation and ouster; that the suit is barred by acquiescence since
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 have been seeing the
improvements affected by the defendants 5 to 9; that the
defendants 5 to 9 have paid valid consideration to their vendors
and thereafter they have effected vast and valuable improvements
in their respective properties by investing huge amounts; that from
the documents it is clear that there is no property for Ramdas in
Nekraje Village and that it appears that the reference of Nekraje
Village instead of Paddy Village is a mutual mistake.
5. The defendants 6 to 8 also filed joint Written Statement and the 9th
respondent filed separate Written Statement with more or less
same contentions as those raised by the 5th respondent.
6. The plaintiff amended the plaint by substituting R.S No.258/2 with
R.S 258/3 in the Plaint A schedule. Some of the defendants filed
additional Written Statements also.
7. The plaintiff and the defendant 1 to 4 who supported the plaintiff
did not adduce any evidence. The counsel for the 1st defendant
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
filed Memo reporting no instructions and the 1st defendant
remained ex parte.
8. On the side of the contesting defendants 5 to 9, the husband of 8th
defendant was examined as DW1, 9th defendant as DW2, Village
Officer of Nekraje-Paddy Village was examined as DW3. At the
instance of the 5th defendant, Sub Registrar Kasaragod produced
registration copy of the registered Power of Attorney No. 133/1993
dt 25.05.1993 and it was marked as Ext.X1 subject to objection.
9. The Trial Court passed a Preliminary Decree ordering to divide
plaint A schedule property into five equal shares, allotting one
share to the plaintiff, one share to defendants 2 and 3 each, and
declaring that the defendants 6 to 9 shall be entitled to two shares.
The Trial Court granted decree finding that Plaint A schedule
property is not included in Ext.X1 Power of Attorney and hence the
plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 have not authorized the 1st
defendant to sell their undivided joint right in the plaint A schedule
property and to execute Ext.B7 sale deed with respect to their joint
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
right in A schedule property on the basis of Ext.X1. The Trial Court
held that Ext.B7 sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff and
defendants 2 and 3 and it will not affect their right in plaint A
schedule property. With respect to the share of 4th defendant
minor, the Trial Court found that the 1st defendant can act as
guardian of the 4th defendant and hence the 1st defendant can
validly execute Ext.B7 Sale deed with respect to the share of the
4th defendant. The said transaction is only voidable and if the 4th
defendant wanted to avoid the said transaction, the suit should
have been filed within a period of three years from the date on
which he attained majority in view of Article 60 of the Limitation
Act. Since he has not filed any suit within 3 years, Ext.B7 is valid
so far it relates to the share of the 4th defendant. With respect to
the plea of ouster and limitation the Trial Court found that the claim
of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 over plaint A schedule
property is not barred by limitation and ouster.
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
10. The defendant No.6 filed A.S.No.40/2011, the defendant No.9 filed
A.S.No.41/2011 and defendants 5, 7 and 8 filed A.S.No. 42/2011
before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court
allowed the Appeals setting aside the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court and dismissing the suit finding that the
plaintiff is not entitled to get partition of the plaint schedule property
since the village name Nekraje was included instead of Paddy by
mistake in Ext.X1 Power of Attorney and that Ext.B7 Sale is ratified
by the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 by long silence.
11. This Appeal is filed challenging the common judgment of the
First Appellate Court in A.S.No.40/2011, A.S.No.41/2011 and
A.S.No. 42/2011. This Court admitted the Appeal on 14.10.2015
on the following substantial questions law framed in the
Memorandum of Appeal.
A. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in law in sustaining Ext. B7-
Sale Deed executed by a Power Holder- 1st defendant on the strength of
the power of attorney (Ext. X1) which concededly did not confer right to sell
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
the subject property, solely on the reasoning that there was ratification by
the power givers by silence?
B. Whether ratification of a void document can be inferred by mere silence on
the part of the affected parties? Is this proposition laid by the Lower
Appellate Court sustainable in law?
C. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in law in sustaining the power
exercised by the power holder in the matter of executing a sale deed, when
there is nothing in the power of attorney to infer that a power had given by
the power givers to the power holder to alienate the subject property by
any reference?
D. Is not the execution and registration of Ext. B7 - sale deed hit by reason of
non compliance of the mandate contained in Sections 32 and 33 of the
Registration Act?
E. Is not the lower appellate court exceeded its appellate jurisdiction in the
matter of interfering with the well considered judgment of the trial court
under the facts and circumstances of the case?
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
12. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Smt.Nikitha Susan
Paulson and the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 8
Sri.Vishnu Prasad and the learned Senior Counsel for the 9th
respondent Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, instructed by Advocate
Sri.P.B.Subramaniam.
13. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the First
Appellate Court ought not to have allowed the Appeals dismissing
the suit when admittedly plaint A schedule property situated in
Paddy Village is not included in Ext.X1 Power of Attorney executed
by the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 in favour of the first
defendant. The Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence on
record and the law on the point and decreed the suit passing
preliminary decree for partition. There was no valid ground or
reason for the First Appellate Court to interfere with the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court
illegally entered a finding that the name of the village is mistakenly
stated in Ext.X1 Power of Attorney as Nekraje instead of Paddy. It
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
is well settled that Power of Attorney has to be construed strictly.
Evidence of DW3 shows that both villages are distinct and
different. The First Appellate Court acted illegally in holding that
the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4 ratified the sale conducted
by their mother, first defendant on their behalf by their long silence.
Ext.B7 sale Deed being a void one it could not be ratified. Even
assuming that there is a mistake in Ext.X1 the contesting
defendants ought to have filed a suit under Section 26 of the
Specific Relief Act.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swarn Singh v. Madan Singh [(1995)
Suppl. 1 SCC 306] in which it is held that when a document is
unambiguous there is no need to travel beyond the document and
look at the attended circumstances together with the intention of
the parties. Learned counsel contended that when the terms of
Ext.X1 Power of Attorney is clear and specific it could not be
assumed that the recital therein is made by mistake.
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
15. The learned counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarassery Roman Catholic
Diocese [(2022) 7 SCC 90] to substantiate that power of attorney
is to be construed strictly by the court.
16. The learned counsel cited the decision of the High Court of the
Punjab and Haryana in Islam and Ors v. Sunder Singh & Ors.
[2022 : PHHC : 078731] to substantiate the point that though
ratification can be inferred either expressed or implied acts, it has
to be specific. In the present case, there is no specific ratification
from the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4.
17. The learned counsel cited the decision of this Court in Saidu v.
Amina & Ors. [1970 KLT 430] to substantiate the point that a void
transaction cannot be ratified.
18. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Illustration (g) of
Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and contended that the said
Illustration is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the case. It indicates that when a sale is executed without the
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
knowledge of the principal with another person, the sale is void as
it implies fraud by concealment by the seller on his principal.
19. The learned counsel cited the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Pramoda A. v. D. Komaraiah [AIR 2010 AP 1981] which
is relied on by the First Appellate Court and contended that the
said decision is clearly distinguishable as in the said decision itself
it is held that ratification can never be resorted to for adding legality
to a transaction which does not exist or the one which has not
taken in accordance with law. It is also held that a sale can take
place only with the participation of vendor either personally or
through agent and there could not be any ex post facto approval
of sale. In the present case, when there was no authorization to
the first defendant from the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 to
execute sale deed with respect to the property in paddy village,
Ext.B7 document executed by the first defendant for and on behalf
of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 is a transaction which has
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
not taken in accordance with law and hence there could not be any
ex post facto of approval of Ext.B7.
20. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Madras High
Court in S.R.M.A.R. Ramaswamy Chetty v. ALKAR Alagappa
Chetty & Anr. [AIR 1915 Madras 859(2)] which is relied on by the
First Appellate Court to substantiate a point in her favour that there
could not be any ratification when the person against whom the
ratification is claimed had no knowledge of the transaction.
21. The learned counsel cited the decision of this Court in Mammu
Haji & Co. (M/s.) v. Vasanthalakshmi [2014 (3) KHC 213] to
substantiate the point that non-examination of the party is not fatal.
It is held that when the burden is on the defendant to adduce
evidence non-examination of the plaintiff is not fatal.
22. The learned counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd & Ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 269] to substantiate the point
that revenue records are not documents of title.
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
23. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the 9th
respondent contended that the deceased Ramdas did not have
any property in Nekraje village. The name of the village happened
to be written as Paddy village instead of Nekraje since Paddy and
Nekraje villages belonged to a Group village which are having a
common village office. The plaintiff does not have a case that
Ramdas is having property in Nekraje village. Even though it is not
the burden of the contesting defendants to prove a negative fact
that deceased Ramdas did not have property in Nekraje village,
the contesting defendants took pain to produce Ext.B15
voluminous document which is the certified copy of the entire KR
Book maintained in the Paddy Group of villages in respect of
Nekraje village to prove that Ramdas did not have any property in
Nekraje village. Ext.B7 document was executed by the first
defendant on the strength of Ext.X1 power of attorney for and on
behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 as they are power
of attorney holder on 19.07.1993 selling the plaint A schedule
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
property to the 5 defendant. The suit was filed in the year 2009
th
for partition of the property covered by Ext.B7 no prayer was made
to challenge Ext.B7. The suit is barred by limitation, ouster, and
acquiescence.
24. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Punjab
High Court in Shankar Das Rup Lal v. Governor in Council [AIR
1952 Punjab 234] in which it is held that ratification need not be
any express act or declaration and might be implied from the
conduct and that it might be inferred from mere acquiescence or
silence or inaction on the part of the parties.
25. The learned Senior Counsel cited the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Iqbal Basith & Ors. v. N. Subbalakshmi & Ors
[(2021) 2 SCC 718] and Iswar Bhai C. Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel
v. Harihar Bahera & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 457] to substantiate the
point that in case of failure to adduce evidence, adverse
presumption has to be drawn against such party.
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
26. The learned Senior Counsel cited the decision of this Court in
Fathima Beevi v. Abdul Rahman ]2023 (4) KLT 1172] to
substantiate the point that when there is a sale deed if the
executant wants to annul the same he has to seek cancellation of
the said deed or the relief to set aside the deed and that when non-
executant wants to annul the deed he has to seek a declaration
that the deed is invalid or non est or illegal or that the deed is not
binding upon him. Without seeking the aforesaid relief a suit for
partition could not be maintained with respect to the property
covered by the said deed.
27. The learned Counsel for respondents 5 to 8 also made
submissions similar to that of the learned Senior Counsel for the
9th respondent.
28. The questions involved in this appeal are whether the inclusion of
Nekraje village and non inclusion of Paddy village in Ext.X1 Power
of Attorney is a mistake and whether Ext.B7 Sale deed could be
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
treated as ratified impliedly by the plaintiff and the defendants 2 &
3 in view of their long silence.
29. The parties to the suit are not in dispute with respect to certain
facts: The plaint A schedule property originally belonged to the
Ramdas who is the father of the plaintiff & the defendants 2 to 4
and husband of the 1st defendant. Ramdas died in the year 1990.
The plaintiff & the defendants 2 to 4 executed Ext.X1 Power of
Attorney in favour the 1st defendant. The village name Paddy is not
included while describing three properties of Ramdas in Ext.X1
with respect to which power is given to the 1st defendant. Plaint A
Schedule property is situated in Paddy village. The 1st defendant
sold the Plaint A schedule property to the 5th defendant in the
capacity as the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff and the 2nd
& 3rd defendants on the strength of Ext.X1 Power of Attorney. The
defendants 6 to 9 are the assignees of the Plaint A Schedule
property from the 5th defendant.
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
30. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, it is the contentions of
the contesting defendants which are to be answered.
31. The first contention is that the Village name Nekraje is written
instead of Paddy in Ext.X1 by mistake. Since the contesting
defendants are asserting that the name of the village Nekraje
mentioned in Ext.X1 is by mistake and the actual village name is
Paddy, the burden is on the contesting defendants to prove that
the mentioning of the name Nekraje in Ext.X1 instead of Paddy is
by way of mistake. On the side of the defendants, the husband of
the 8th defendant was examined as DW1, the 9th defendant was
examined as DW2, and the Village Officer of Paddy group villages
was examined as DW3, and they produced documents. The
evidence of the contesting defendants would prove that Ramdas
did not have any property in Nekraje village. Even after the
amendment in the plaint, the plaintiff does not have case that
Ramdas is having property in Nekraje village and Ext.X1 relates to
that property. The purpose of executing the Power of Attorney is
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
revealed from the recitals in Ext.X1. It is executed consequent to
the death of Ramdas to give power in favour of the 1st defendant
by the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3. This is evidenced by the
recital in Ext.X1 that 'WHEREAS after the death of the above said
B.Ramdas, we along with you and younger sister, have jointly
inherited the landed properties which are situated in.....'.
Thereafter three items of properties are included with reference to
their village name. Item No.2 is the property in Nekraje village. The
5th defendant filed I.A No. 1696/2010 serving Interrogatories on the
plaintiff as to whether late Ramdas had properties in Nekraje
village. The plaintiff filed an Affidavit answering that Ramdas had
immovable properties in Nekraje village. Thereafter The 5th
defendant filed I.A No.2122/2010 serving Interrogatories seeking
the details of properties of Ramdas in Nekraje village. The plaintiff
filed an Affidavit answering that he does not have the details and
particulars of properties held by Ramdas in Nekraje village. Even
though it is not the burden of the contesting defendants to prove a
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
negative fact that deceased Ramdas did not have property in
Nekraje village, the contesting defendants took pain to produce a
voluminous document Ext.B15 which is the certified copy of the
entire KR Book maintained in the Paddy Group of villages in
respect of Nekraje village to prove that Ramdas did not have any
property in Nekraje village. Ext.B14 Reply under the RTI Act
issued by DW3 also would prove that Ramdas had property only
in Paddy village. It is in evidence of DW1 and DW3 that Nekraje
and Paddy Villages are group villages, and they have a single
Village Officer, single Village Assistant, and single Office. DW3 is
the Village Officer of Nekraje and Paddy Group village. Ext.B15
relating to Nekraje village is issued by the Paddy Group Village
Officer. Hence, there is a chance of committing a mistake while
referring to the properties situated in these villages. The plaintiff
did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary to defend
the said contention. When the plaintiff is asserting a fact that
Ramdas had property in Nekraje village the burden is on the
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
plaintiff to prove that Ramdas had property in Nekraje village. The
plaintiff did not mount to the witness box. The evidence adduced
by the contesting defendants would prove that while executing
Ext.X1, the real intention of the parties to Ext.X1 was to include the
property in Paddy village in Item No.2 and not Nekraje village.
Hence it could be concluded that the name of the village is
mistakenly shown in Item No.2 in Ext.X1 as Nekraje instead of
Paddy. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the
appellant, Power of Attorney has to be construed strictly in the light
of the precedents cited by her. The contesting defendants ought
to have filed suit under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act for
rectification of Ext.X1. Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act
provides that a suit for rectification is to be filed when an instrument
does not reveal the real intention of the parties on account of a
mutual mistake. Ext.X1 was executed on 25/05/1993. Ext.B7 was
executed on 19/07/1993. The circumstances indicate that it was
executed for selling the properties of the deceased Ramdas.
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
Though the 1 defendant had admitted the execution of Ext.X1 by
st
him, he objected to marking of Ext.X1 on the ground that the
execution is disputed. The Trial Court overruled the objection and
marked the document. The evidence of DW1 would prove that the
plaintiff was very much present when the 1st defendant executed
Ext.B7 Sale Deed representing him as Power of Attorney holder to
sell the plaint schedule property to the 5th defendant. This part of
the evidence of DW1 is not cross examined by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff did not raise any objection against selling his rights over
the plaint A schedule property to the 5th defendant on the strength
of Ext.X1. He allowed the 5th defendant and the assignees
defendants to take possession of the Plaint A schedule property,
to enjoy the same and to make improvements therein. The present
suit is brought after more than 15 years after the execution of
Ext.B7 Sale Deed. It indicates that the parties, including the
plaintiff, believed and caused others to believe that Ext.X1
includes the property in Paddy village also. The state affairs
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
continued for more than 15 years. In these facts and
circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is estopped from
contending that Ext.X1 does not include Plaint A schedule property
in Paddy village in view Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam,2023 corresponding to Section 115 of the Evidence
Act,1872. Ext.B7 sale deed could not be said to be a void
document as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.
It is obvious that the plaintiff has been indulging in experimental
litigation challenging valid sale deeds which were executed years
back with his full knowledge and consent. The failure of the
contesting defendants to file suit for rectification of Ext.X1 in such
a situation is not fatal.
32. The second contention of the contesting defendants is that Ext.B7
is ratified by the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3. Sections 197
to 200 of the Indian Contract Act deal with ratification. Section 197
provides that ratification may be expressed or implied in the
conduct of the person on whose behalf the acts are done. The suit
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
is seen filed after about 15 years from the date of the Ext.B7
document executed by the 1st defendant with respect to the plaint
A schedule property. As found earlier, the plaintiff had full
knowledge of the execution of Ext.B7 on the strength of Ext.X1
Power of Attorney on the date of execution of Ext.B7 itself. Of
course, mere silence for long period would not amount to
ratification. But when there is a long silence after the transaction
with respect to which ratification is claimed, it is the duty of the
party remaining silent to explain the valid reasons for the silence.
In the absence of any sufficient or reasonable explanation for
the long silence after the questioned transaction, the ratification
could be presumed. Non-examination of the plaintiff is not fatal in
every case. If, in a case, the burden is entirely on the defendant to
prove the unsustainability of the prayers of the plaintiff, the
nonexamination of the plaintiff is not fatal. If the pleadings in the
plaint are admitted by the defendants and they dispute the
sustainability of the prayers on account of the defense raised by
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
them in the Written Statement, the non-examination of the plaintiff
is not fatal to the case. But there may be circumstances shifting
the burden of proof from one party to another. Hence, the question
of whether non examination of the plaintiff is fatal or not is a matter
to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
case on hand, the plaintiff and the supporting defendants did not
mount to the Witness box to explain the reason for the long delay
on their part to challenge Ext.B7. They did not make themselves
available for cross examination by the contesting defendants.
Hence from the conduct of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 it
is revealed that they have ratified Ext.B7 Sale executed by the 1st
defendant on behalf of them on the strength of Ext.X1 Power of
Attorney by their long silence.
33. When Ext.B7 is executed validly by the 1st defendant for and on
behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 on strength of
Ext.X1 Power of Attorney in the presence of the plaintiff, it is not
hit by non compliance of Section 32 and 33 of the Registration Act.
RSA NO.1109 of 2015
2024:KER:81246
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that Questions of law
Nos. B & C do not arise in the matter. I answer Question of Law A
in the affirmative and Questions of Law Nos. D & E in the negative,
all in favour of the contesting respondents and against the
appellant and supporting respondents.
35. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
jma
