Poolammal vs R.Krishnan ... 1St
2022 Latest Caselaw 15708 Mad

                                                                              SA(md)No.209 of 2014


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            DATED: 23.09.2022

                                   CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                        S.A.(MD)No.209 of 2014 and
                                           M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014

                1.Poolammal
                2.Maheswaran
                3.Sudalaivadivu                   .... Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2/Plaintiffs

                [Appellant No.3 is impleaded vide order dated 08.09.2022 made in
                C.M.P(MD).No.7640 of 2022 in S.A.(MD).No.209 of 2014]

                                                      Vs.

                1.R.Krishnan                   ... 1st Respondent/Appellant/1st Defendant
                2.Kombiah Pandian             ... 2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent/2nd Defendant

                Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,
                against the judgment and decree 06.09.2013 in A.S.No.98 of 2011 on the file
                of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, reversing the judgement and
                decree dated 05.01.2011 in O.S.No.581 of 2008 on the file of the Principal
                District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.


                                    For Appellant        : M/s.Janaki Devi
                                                           for Mr.TSR.Venkatramana

                                    For Respondents      : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
                                                           Senior Counsel for
                                                           Mr.H.Arumugam for R1
                                                           No-appearance for R2



               1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               SA(md)No.209 of 2014


                                                  JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs, who represented through their power of agent one

Ramachandran, lost their suit for declaration that Ext.A.5 = Ext.B.3 sale deed

dated 28.05.2007 executed by the second defendant on the strength of Ext.B.2

power of attorney in favour of the first defendant is null and void. They were

successful before the trial court but in an appeal preferred by the first

defendant, they suffered reversal in their fortune. Hence, they are before this

Court.

2. For narrative convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rank

before the trial court.

3. The facts fall in very narrow compass:

● There are two items of properties and both are wet agricultural lands.

The first item is in S.No.561, Chithar Chathiram Village, and has an

extent of 4.58 acres. The second item is in S.No.564 and this has an

extent of 8.90 acres.

● These properties originally belonged to Perumal Devar. On his demise,

the property devolved on his sons namely Ramachandran and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(md)No.209 of 2014

Subramanian. Vide Ext.A3 dated 27.05.1996, partition deed, the brothers

partitioned the properties, in which, Ramachandran was allotted the

western 6.74 acres, out of the combined total extent of 13.48 acres.

● Ramachandran is a resident of Malaysia and he died there on

18.01.1997. The first plaintiff is his widow. The second plaintiff is their

son. It is their case that Ramachandran alleged to have executed a power

of attorney in favour of the second defendant Vide Ext.B.2 dated

13.06.1996, and on the strength of Ext.B.2, the second defendant

executed a sale deed Ext.A.5 = Ext.B.3 dated 28.05.2007, some 10 years

after the death of the principal to the first defendant. It is hence they

have approached the court for a declaration that Ext.A.5 = Ext.B.3 sale

deed would not bind them. Both the defendants contested the suit.

4. In their written statement, the second defendant has pleaded that he believed

that when he executed Ext.B3 = Ext.A5, Ramachandran was alive and at any

rate, he passed on the sale consideration to the first plaintiff.

5. The dispute went to trial in which both sides adduced oral and documentary

evidence. For the plaintiffs, their power of attorney entered the box as P.W.1.

They produced Ext.A.1 to Ext.A.6, of which reference has already been made

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(md)No.209 of 2014

to Ext.A.5. Ext.A.4 is the translation of Death Certificate of Ramachandran.

For the defendants both the defendants examined themselves as D.W.1 and

D.W.3. In between they examined a certain Udayar Dhas as D.W.2 and he did

not enter the box for cross-examination and his evidence came to be eschewed.

6. On appreciating the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit. As outlined

earlier, the First Appellate Court reversed it. The First Appellate Court's line of

reasoning is twin fold:

a) The original Death Certificate of Ramachandran has not been

produced;

b) that only the power of attorney of the plaintiff had entered the witness

box and not the plaintiff based on the ratio in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwanti

and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd and others [2005(3) CTC 128].

Hence, the Second Appeal.

7. This Second Appeal is admitted for considering the following questions of

law:

i) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in not deciding the

issue, whether Ext.B.2/power deed was indeed executed by

late.Ramachandran?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(md)No.209 of 2014

ii) When admittedly 2nd appellant/2nd plaintiff is a Hindu son of

late.Ramachandran, can the father sell the entire Hindu Undivided

Family (HUF) property?'

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the line of reasoning of

the First Appellate Court that P.W.1 was incompetent to speak the facts that he

had spoken based on the judgment in Janki Vashdeo's is not appropriate.

Janki Vashdeo's case, on facts, arises in the following circumstances:-

i. In that case, in the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the

wife preferred a claim petition but for the wife, the husband tendered

evidence. When the matter ultimately reached the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, it directed the matter be heard again and specifically directed that

the husband of the claimant, who is a judgment debtor, should not tender

evidence for the wife. But despite that, he entered the box as the power

of attorney of his wife. It is, in this circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that the power of attorney is not competent to speak for

the Principal.

ii. So far as the application of this ratio is concerned, a judgment is a

precedent for what it actually decides and unless the facts are identical,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(md)No.209 of 2014

the value of the precedent cannot be mechanically telescoped into the

situations which are not parallel to the one dealt with under a judgment

constituting a precedent.

iii. Secondly, the case of the plaintiff is all about when Ramachandran, the

Principal, had passed away and it does not require any other facts. That

Ramachandran had passed away could be proved only by his Death

Certificate and that has already been done vide Ext.A.4. When the best

evidence is before the Court, it does not require the witness of any

special competency to speak about the death of Ramachandran.

Therefore, even if the ratio in Janki Vashdeo's case is considered as

applicable, then given the facts of the present case, it may not affect the

cause of action of the plaintiff nor it affects the competency of the power

of attorney of the plaintiff since the death certificate is before the Court.

iv. Thirdly, since the first Appellate Court has taken a view that original

Death certificate issued by the Authorities in Malaysia has not been

produced, the same is now produced with due authentication by the

Consular Officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia vide

M.P(MD).No.1 of 2015 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. This

Court chose to peruse the same and allow this document as additional

document and the same is marked as Ext.A7.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(md)No.209 of 2014

9. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that Ext.A7, the

Death Certificate produced by the plaintiffs does not satisfy the criteria under

Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act for this Court to act on it. He added

that inasmuch as the original Death Certificate has been introduced in evidence

only now, the defendants must be given the opportunity to rebut it under Order

XLI Rule 28 of C.P.C.

10. This Court having admitted the Death Certificate signed by the Consular

Officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia as Ex.A7, necessarily the

defendants may have to lead in their rebuttal evidence. In the context of the

doubt/objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that

Ext.A7 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act,

this Court considers it necessary to grant the plaintiffs an opportunity to

produce the Death Certificate satisfying the requirements of Section 78(6) of

the Evidence Act, if it is found that Ext.A7 does not satisfy the requirements of

Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act.

11. This Second Appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the

Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, for considering the aspects which

are specifically indicated herein and no other. Both sides will have right to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(md)No.209 of 2014

adduce evidence only on a limited fact as to the date of death of Ramachandran

and no more. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, is

required to dispose the matter latest by 31.01.2023. The parties or the Agents

are directed to appear before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,

Tirunelveli on 10.10.2022. There shall be an order of injunction not to disturb

the possession of the defendants till the disposal of the matter by the

Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. No costs.

23.09.2022

ssb/CM

Note: Issue Order Copy on 26.09.2022

To

1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA(md)No.209 of 2014

N.SESHASAYEE., J.

ssb/CM

SA(MD)No.209 of 2014

23.09.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis