Madras High Court
C.Saravanan vs M/S.Ravi & Nina Enterprises on 15 December, 2021
S.A.No.830 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.No.830 of 2017
C.Saravanan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M/s.Ravi & Nina Enterprises
rep by its Partner
A.Ravikumar Reddy
No.9 River view road
Kottupuram,
Chennai-600 085
2.Ravichandra Reddy ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code to set aside the decree and judgment dated 07.12.2016 passed
in A.S.No.40 of 2015 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu
confirming the decree and judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed in I.A.No.1209 of
2013 in O.S.No.76 of 2013 by the District Munsif, Chengalpattu.
For Appellant : Mr.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Babu
-----
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the rejection of plaint, the plaintiff has preferred the
above Second Appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration declaring the Power of
Attorney registered as Doc.No.106 of 1994 and the pursuant sale deed
registered as Doc.No.160 of 2006 dated 09.01.2006 as fraudulent sham and
nominal and for a consequential mandatory injunction to return the documents
and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with the possession.
3. According to the plaint, on receipt of a notice from Income Tax
Department dated 09.03.2012, the plaintiff came to know the sale of family
property during the year 2006. Since he was practising as an advocate, he could
not collect the correct status of the property and after long trace he could
understand that his family property situated at Thiruvidanthai village,
Chengalpattu Taluk, Kanchipuram District in S.No.2/1C3 measuring about 4.75
acres was sold when he was an minor. Only when he applied for the certified
copy of the Power of Attorney as well as the sale deed, he came to know of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
fact. The Power of Attorney was allegedly executed in the year 1994, while he
was a minor. Further, based on the alleged Power of Attorney, the sale deed was
executed on 09.01.2006, after a period of 13 years after execution of the Power
of Attorney. After getting the certified copy of the sale deed and Power of
Attorney, he was shocked to know that the 2nd defendant had executed a sale
deed in favour of the first defendant. The value mentioned in the document was
also very low and false. The transaction is nothing but sham and nominal. The
lower value quoted in the sale deed shows the malafide intention of cheating the
Income Tax department and the plaintiff. The second defendant who was the
Power of Attorney has not informed the details regarding the execution of the
sale deed and also not submitted the true accounts either to the plaintiff's father
or to him. The Power of Attorney itself is invalid and not enforceable and will
not bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not having knowledge regarding
execution of Power of Attorney either in the year 1994 or execution of the sale
deed in the year 2006. The second defendant in the capacity of his agent never
made any representation to the plaintiff on the date of execution of sale deed
dated 09.01.2006. He neither maintained nor improved the suit property in any
manner whatsoever. In the sale deed the second defendant shown his age as 26
years. As per which it is categorically admitted that the plaintiff was a minor at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
the time of execution of Power of Attorney. The defendants are well educated
and very much aware of legal consequences of execution of sale deed after a
lapse of 13 years. The plaintiff was not having any knowledge about the
execution of Power of Attorney in favour of the second defendant. The
defendants are liable for criminal prosecution for misusing the minor's interests
of his ancestral property and therefore the sale deed executed by the second
defendant in favour of the first defendant is liable to be set aside on the grounds
of involvement of minor interest. The sale deed was undervalued and it is made
with an intention to defraud the plaintiff and the Income Tax department.
Further, the second defendant has not followed the requirements as prescribed
in Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956. The plaintiff has not received
any consideration either from the first or second defendant. Infact as per real
Power of Attorney the second defendant has to act prudently without causing
any loss either directly or indirectly. Taking advantage of the ignorance and
polite nature of his father the first defendant has exploited and obtained
wrongful gains and sold to the property to the first defendant after the lapse of
13 years. The second defendant has no right to alienate the property on his own
will and accord and no consent was obtained from the principal to execute such
power. The notice issued by him was replied evasively and they filed suit for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
permanent injunction and obtained exparte interim injunction. The second
defendant as power agent has not acted prudently and caused loss to the
plaintiff wherein the minor interest of the property was involved and therefore
he filed the above suit.
4. The defendant filed an petition under Or.7 R.11(a) and 11(d)
C.P.C for rejection of the plaint. Trial Court after considering the oral and
documentary evidence allowed the petition and rejected the plaint. Against
which the plaintiff preferred an appeal and it was also dismissed. Aggrieved
over the same, the present Second Appeal has been preferred.
5. Both the sides have made elaborate submissions.
6. From perusal of the plaint, it is noted that Birth certificate is plaint
document No.1; Power of Attorney dated 09.02.1994 is document No.4 and
Sale deed dated 09.01.2006 is plaint document No.5. The entire suit is based on
the fact that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of execution of Power of
Attorney and any transaction on the basis of the Power of Attorney is illegal.
Perusal of the Power of Attorney dated 09.02.1994 reveals that the plaintiff as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
the fourth party representing himself as a principal. The said Power of Attorney
was executed in favour of the second defendant herein at the office of Sub-
Registrar. It is not mentioned that he was a minor at the time of execution of
Power of Attorney but it was signed by the plaintiff before the Registrar, which
means that the declaration was given before the Registrar to register the Power
of Attorney that the plaintiff is a major. The birth certificate which is plaint
document No.1 reveals the date of birth of the plaintiff was 18.10.1976. As per
the certificate of birth the plaintiff has completed 17 years 3 months and 19
days and he was running 18 years. Therefore, it is inferred that a declaration
was given before the Registrar as if he attained full age of 18 years though he
has not completed and the Power of Attorney was registered. Now that it is
required to be seen that whether the plaintiff had knowledge of consequences of
appointing his Power of Attorney or not.
7. In the plaint a specific averment is made that the Power of Attorney
was responsible for false declaration of age. Such a contention cannot be
accepted. Further averment claims the notice issued by the Income Tax
department dated 09.03.2012 is the date of knowledge about Power of Attorney
which gave rise to cause of action to file the suit. However, the averments made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
in para 6 is contradictory to the very statement. In para 6 the plaintiff would
aver that the second defendant as the Power of Attorney failed to inform the
plaintiff of the execution of the sale deed and also not submitted the true
accounts either to the plaintiff's father or to him. If this averment is taken, it
gives an impression that he had knowledge over the duties and responsibilities
of a Power of Attorney and that the second defendant as a Power of Attorney
had failed to submit true accounts to his father or to him. In that event the
Power of Attorney should be recognised as a valid document. The further
averments at para 9 would go to show that the second defendant in the capacity
of his agent executed the sale deed and never informed the plaintiff of the sale
on the day of execution. Such an averment categorically recognises the second
defendant as his agent and that he has a duty informing the actions taken on his
behalf as his principal. It is further averred that the Power of Attorney has not
maintained or improved the suit property in any manner. This averment expects
the second defendant of his duties to maintain the proeperty and to make
improvements over the same. Therefore, the averment that he did not have any
knowledge about the Power of Attorney till he received the notice dated
09.032012 is false and it is pleaded only for the purpose of creating an giving a
illusory cause of action to maintain the suit and to escape from law of limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
8. The further averments that the plaintiff had not received any
consideration in any manner whatsoever either from the first or second
defendant and that the second defendant had to act prudently without causing
loss either directly or indirectly clearly proves that the grievance of the plaintiff
is not on the valid execution of Power of Attorney, but on not receiving the sale
consideration at the time of registration of the sale. It is expected that Power of
Attorney shall pass on the consideration and keep the principal without any
loss. If that is the case, it goes to show that the plaintiff had definite knowledge
about the Power of Attorney. The very same averments were repeated in Para
21, which reads as under:
“ 21. The plaintiff states that the second defendant as
Power of Agent has not acted prudently and in the best interest
of the plaintiff and had acted in a reckless manner to bring
about total loss of the property to this principals, with the
minor interest on the property involved and caused prejudice to
the plaintiff herein.
9. It gives an impression that the plaintiff's remedy lies elsewhere.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
Instead of filing a suit for damages, he preferred a suit for declaration declaring
the registered Power of Attorney and sale deed as illegal on the illusory cause of
action.
10. Art.59 and 60(a) of Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under:
“59. Description of Suit Period of
Limitation Time from which period begins to run
To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or
for the recession of a control Three years When
the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the
instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the
contract rescinded first become known to him.
60. To set aside a transfer of property
made by the guardian of a ward
(a) by the ward, who has attained
majority, three years from the date on which the
ward attains majority."
11. The Trial Court has found that the suit was filed by the plaintiff at
the age of 36 years. The suit was not filed to set aside the document within a
period of three years of attaining majority. The plaintiff has conveniently had
taken shelter under the date of knowledge. But the plaint averments clearly
prove that the plaintiff had knowledge about the execution of Power of Attorney
in the year 1994, when he was 17 years 3 months. He should have filed the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
within 3 years i.e latest by 1998 but he filed the suit only in the year 2013 i.e
after a lapse of 15 years, which is hopelessly barred by limitation. Further, the
sale deed was executed in the year 2006 and it was challenged only after a
period of 7 years, which is also barred by limitation. First Appellate Court in
terms of Art. 59 and 60 of Limitation Act held that a minor should challenge the
document within three years from the date of attaining majority, but the
document was challenged after a period of 19 years. Therefore, dismissed the
suit holding that the protection under law as a minor would not apply to the
plaintiff and the cause of action claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of date of
knowledge was also false.
12. I do not find any discrepancy in the above findings and the plaint
averments clearly goes to show that the plaintiff declared himself as 18 years
old at the time of execution of Power of Attorney and he cannot put the blame
on the second defendant. Secondly, the plaintiff claims true and correct
accounts from the second defendant and information and the duty of the second
defendant as power of Attorney to inform him at the time of sale clearly shows
that he was aware of the Power of Attorney from the beginning. Even assuming
that he was under the shade of his parents and dependent upon them and he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
could not challenge the action of his father, he should have filed the suit within
three years after attaining the age of majority. Once the document is not
challenged within a period of three after attaining the age of majority it is is
barred in view of Art.59 and 60(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
13. Secondly, there is no cause of action against the first defendant.
First defendant has purchased the property for valid consideration in the year
2006. He should be deemed as a bonafide purchaser. There is no reason alleged
against the first defendant. Even assuming that the second defendant has acted
fraudulently, the sale remains valid as long as the Power of Attorney is in force
on the date of execution of sale deed. The first defendant cannot be expected to
understand that Power of Attorney is acting against the interest of the principle.
There is no averment in this regard. Absolutely, there is no cause of action to
maintain the suit against the first defendant. Without any cause of action, the
sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant cannot be set aside.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors, Popat and Kotecha Property Vs.
State Bank of India Staff Association, 2005 7 SCC 510 and order of this
Court in in C.R.P(.PD) dated 27.11.2014. For the proposition that the
averments made in the plaint are germaine for consideration of petition under
Or.VII R.11 A, CPC whereas the Court below relied on the extraneous
document marked by the defendant and therefore the order tainted with
illegalities and liable to be set aside.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would rely on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh and Ors vs. Birbal and
Ors, AIR 2006 SC 3608. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
“6. Limitation is a statute of repose. It
ordinarily bars a remedy, but, does not extinguish a
right. The only exception to the said rule is to be
found in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which
provides that at the determination of the period
prescribed thereby, limited to any person for
instituting a suit for possession of any property, his
right to such property shall be extinguished. An
extinction of right, as contemplated by the provisions
of the Limitation Act, prima facie would be attracted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
in all types of suits. The Schedule appended to the
Limitation Act, as prescribed by the Articles, provides
that upon lapse of the prescribed period, the
institution of a suit will be barred. Section 3 of the
Limitation Act provides that irrespective of the fact as
to whether any defence is set out is raised by the
defendant or not, in the event a suit is found to be
barred by limitation, every suit instituted, appeal
preferred and every application made after the
prescribed period shall be dismissed. Article 59 of the
Limitation Act applies specially when a relief is
claimed on the ground of fraud or mistake. It only
encompasses within its fold fraudulent transactions
which are voidable transactions.
......
13.There is a presumption that a registered
document is validly executed. A registered document,
therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus
of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads
evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant
case, Respondent No.1 has not been able to rebut the
said presumption.
16. If a deed was executed by the plaintiff when he was a minor and it
was void, he had two options to file a suit to get the property purportedly
conveyed thereunder. He could either file the suit within 12 years of the deed or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
within 3 years of attaining majority. Here, the plaintiff did not either sue within
12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Therefore, the suit
was rightly held to be barred by limitation by the trial court. In the instant case,
the plaint averments on the face of it creates an illusory cause of action on the
basis of date of knowledge to the notice caused by the Income Tax department.
Secondly there is no cause of action against the first defendant to maintain the
suit or to set aside the sale deed made in his favour. Thirdly, the suit is
absolutely barred by limitation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem
Singh' case which reads as under:
13.There is a presumption that a registered
document is validly executed. A registered document,
therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of
proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to
rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent
No.1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.
The findings of the Courts below are based on valid reasons and it
need not be interfered. I do not find any question of law arising out of the facts
stated herein. Thus the Second Appeal does not deserve admission and
accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
15.12.2021
Note:Issue order copy on 06.04.2022
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu
2.The District Munsif, Chengalpattu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.830 of 2017
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
kpr
S.A.No.830 of 2017
15.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
