Madras High Court
Gurusamy vs A.1362 on 5 August, 2024
S.A(MD)No.122 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 12.07.2024
Pronounced on : 05.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
S.A(MD)No.122 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2047 of 2017
1.Gurusamy
2.G.Saradha ... Appellants/Appellants/
Defendants
Vs.
A.1362, Meenakshi Co-operative Building
Society Ltd.,
Through its Secretary Su.Sivasankaran,
S/o.Sundararajan,
D.No.1, 2 Dhanappamudali Street,
Madurai. ... Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff
PRAYER :-
This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2015 made in
A.S.No.21 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Madurai,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2013 made in O.S.No.126
of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai and to allow this
appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
For Respondent : Mr.B.Muneeswaran
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.122 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated
23.04.2015 passed in A.S.No.21 of 2013 on the file of the learned
IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 21.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.126 of 2007 on the file of the learned
I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.
2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is a plaintiff in
O.S.No.126 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The
respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property by
the plaintiff in alternative directing the defendants to hand over possession of
the suit property to the plaintiff.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and
defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.126 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional
Sub Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Case of the plaintiff:
The plaintiff is the A.1362 Meenakshi Cooperative Building Society
Limited, which was registered in the year 1939 and at present it is registered
under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. One
L.A.Ramamoorthy was the Director/Honorary Secretary of the society. For
the activities of the society, he purchased the property in larger extent in
S.No.136/4 measuring 95 cents of Perungudi village from Karuppiah Thevar
and Salai Karuppa Thevar through the registered sale deed, dated 15.02.1962
under document No.976/1962 and property in S.No.136/4 measuring 1 Acre
24 cent and in S.No.134/4 measuring 12 cents of same village from
Vellaisamy Thevar through registered sale deed, dated 19.04.1962 under
document No.2101/1962. The said L.A.Ramamoorthy resigned his post of
Director/Honorary Secretary on 15.04.1986 due to his ill health. Thereafter,
the post of Director/Honorary Secretary was abolished and Special Officers
were appointed to administer the society activities. In the year 1999, the
plaintiff society came to know that some persons created fake and forged
documents and sold out the society's property. On perusal of a copy of the
sale deed, dated 31.01.1996, the plaintiff society came to know that one
Navanathan as if the power of attorney of L.A.Ramamoorthy through power
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deed, dated 02.08.1995, the society’s properties were sorted as housing plots
in the name of O.V.R.Mohan Nagar and sold plot Nos.85 and 86 to the
defendants. The said Navanathan had no title over the suit property. Upon
criminal complaint, the alleged thumb impression of L.A.Ramamoorthy was
found forged. From the date of purchase, the suit properties with a larger
extent have been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff society. The
property was purchased in the name of society, not in the individual name of
L.A.Ramamoorthy. As per bye-law, the property of the plaintiff society can
be sold only to its members. The defendants are not members of the society
and the alleged sale deed stands in their name, will not bind the society.
Hence, the plaintiff society filed the suit seeking declaration and injunction
with alternative relief of recovery of possession.
5. Case of the Defendants:
The defendants purchased the suit property by virtue of a registered
sale deed dated 28.02.1996 from the plaintiff society. It is wrong to state that
the plaintiff society’s property would be sold only to its members. After
purchase, a person can register himself as a member of the society. The
defendants are always ready to join members of the plaintiff society. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendants are bona fide purchasers by paying due sale consideration. The
defendants presented application for membership, but due to
misunderstanding among executive committee members, it was delayed. So,
the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. Reply Statement of the plaintiff:-
The plaintiff society purchased the suit property in the year 1961, 1962
and it has paid property tax regularly. The said Navanathan alleged to have
obtained power of attorney from one Lalli Anumanthair Ramamoorthy, who
has not connected to the society and its property. The ex-secretary of the
society is one Lottia Anumanthair Ramamoorthy, who died two years back.
The defendants claim title through forged documents and they do not have
any right over the suit property.
7. During trial, on the plaintiff's side one witness was examined as
P.W.1 and marked exhibits as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.25. On the defendants' side,
one witness was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. After hearing both, the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai
decreed the suit in O.S.No.126 of 2007 by passing judgment and decree
dated 21.01.2013. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants
preferred the Civil Appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2013 before the IV Additional
District Court, Madurai. The first Appellate Court after hearing both passed
judgment dated 23.04.2015 dismissing the appeal and confirmed the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.126 of 2007.
9. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court,
the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal and the same has been
admitted for file on 03.03.2017 on the following substantial questions of
law:-
i) Whether the appellants/defendants are liable to
discharge the burden of proving the allegation of fraud
made by the respondent/plaintiff in the purchase of the
suit schedule plots by the appellants/defendants?
ii) Whether the appellants/defendants are not
entitled to protection as bonafide purchasers for value
under the Transfer of Property Act?
iii) Whether the purchase of the suit schedule
plots by the appellants/defendants are not valid in law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
due to the fact that they were not members of the
respondent/plaintiff society?
10. Heard both sides and perused the records in this Second Appeal.
Both sides have filed their respective written submissions.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has argued that
the defendants purchased the suit property through registered sale deeds
dated 28.02.1996 executed by Navanathan as the power of attorney of
L.A.Ramamoorthy, which are marked as Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.11. The plaintiff
states that the society has not executed sale deed in favour of the defendants
and the sale deeds got executed by impersonation or fraud because the suit
property with larger extent was purchased in the name of society, not in the
individual name of L.A.Ramamoorthy. So, it is the burden on the plaintiff to
prove that the sale deeds were executed by impersonation. The plaintiff has
not impleaded the said L.A.Ramamoorthy and Navanathan as a party to the
suit. It is the onus of proof on the part of the plaintiff to prove the said
impersonation or fraud. The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the
criminal case filed against Navanathan and the forensic report filed in that
case. The trial Court wrongly concluded that the criminality stood proved on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the basis of a copy of criminal complaint. The said criminal case was closed
as abated. The observation of Courts below that the burden is on defendants
to prove the sale deeds are valid is not correct. The plaintiff has not prayed
for cancellation of sale deeds, which are alleged fraud or impersonation. The
plaintiff states that L.A.Ramamoorthy is Lottia Anumandhair Ramamoorthy
where in the sale deed it is mentioned as Lalli Anumandhair Ramamoorthy,
so he was impersonated. It is not disputed that the suit property with a larger
extent was purchased by L.A.Ramamoorthy, and so the plaintiff cannot state
that the said Ramamoorthy has no authority to sell the property. As per
Section 43 of the T.P.Act, the purchase of the property is valid one and also
the defendants are bonafide purchasers for valuable sale consideration. The
plaintiff has not proved the impersonation and no issue was framed by the
trial Court in that respect. The suit itself is not maintainable under the
Limitation Act as the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation. Whenever
a document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed
knowledge. In this case, the sale deeds were executed in the year 1996, the
suit is filed in the year 2007, beyond the limitation period. As per Article 58
of the Limitation Act, the suit has to be filed within three years and hence the
suit is hit by the Limitation Act. The property was purchased as Meenakshi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Nilaiyam and with the same name the defendants purchased the property.
Whether the person involved in sale deeds has power to execute sale deed or
not, is the indoor management of the society, it is not for the defendants, who
are bonafide purchasers. The Courts below erred in deciding the case which
is not barred by limitation and the sale deeds are executed by fraud.
12. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellants/defendants relied on the following citations:
(i) (2006) 4 MLJ 1067 (Chinnanan /v/ Paranimalai and Others),
wherein it is held in paragraph Nos.9 and 12 as follows:
''9. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/4th defendant would submit that the sale
deed executed by the plaintiff under Ex.A.2 is not void
and if at all it is only voidable at the instance of the
erstwhile minor, being a party to the document and if
that should challenged, there should be a prayer for
cancellation of the said document, paying proper
court-fee.
12. .....…to support the above position, the
learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to
a Full Bench decision of this Court in
SANKARANARAYANA PILLAI AND ANOTHER /V/
KANDASAMIA PILLAI (1956)II MLJ 411) wherein
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
while answering the points that if the minor is eo
nominee party to a sale deed, is it necessary for him to
sue for the cancellation of the document, or is it
suffice, if he files the suit for declaration, excluding
the sale, as such, the Full Bench has arrived at an
uniform conclusion and had held as follows:
“Where a minor is eo nomine a party to a
sale deed or other document of alienation by a
guardian which he seeks to set aside, it is not
enough for him to merely sue for possession and
pay court-fee under section 7(v) of the Court
Fees Act, but he must sue for the cancellation of
the document and pay court-fee under section
7(iv-A) of the Act. It makes no difference
whether sale deed is executed by the guardian of
the minor as guardian or as manager of the joint
family. In either case, the document has to be set
aside. It is not open to the minor to ignore the
transaction and seek possession of the
property.”
(ii) (2017) 1 MLJ 153 (M.Panneerselvam /v/ Susseella and Others),
wherein it is held in paragraph No.21 as follows:
''21. .......Therefore, all the above facts seen
cumulatively, would go to disclose that though the
plaintiffs are aware of the sale deed dated 27.08.1987
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and despite having knowledge about the same, as
rightly put forth by the defendants counsel, the
plaintiffs have not instituted the suit within 3 years
period of time. It is thus evident that the suit laid by
the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration as such, is
barred by limitation. The argument that the plaintiffs
suit for declaration could be construed as the relief of
setting aside the sale deed dated 27.08.1987, even if
accepted, it could be seen that the lis filed by the
plaintiffs would be out of time as per Article 59 of the
Limitation Act.''
(iii) Judgment, dated 04.04.1997 delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Harshad J Shah & Anr. /v/ LIC of India & Ors.,
wherein it is held in page Nos. 6 and 7 as follows:
“The authority of the agent is apparent where
it results from a manifestation made by the principal
to third parties. The doctrine of apparent authority
involves the assumption that there is in fact no
authority at all. It is the authority of an agent as it
appears to others. Under this doctrine where a
principal represents, or is regarded by law as
representing, that another has authority, he may be
bound as against a third party by the acts of that
other person within the authority which that persons
appears to have though he had not in fact given that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
person such authority or had limited the authority by
instructions not made known to the third party. The
notion of apparent authority is essentially confined to
the relationship between principal and third
party. .............
The only question is whether the LIC can be
held liable on the basis of the doctrine of apparent
authority. Shri Mathur has invoked the said doctrine
and has replied upon section 237 of Indian Contract
Act. He has urge that, by its conduct in receiving the
premium through his agents, the LIC had induced the
policyholders to believe that acts of the agents in
receiving the premium from the policyholders were
within the scope of the agents’ authority. …….We
are, therefore, unable to hold that the doctrine of
apparent authority underlying section 237 of the
Indian Contract Act can be invoked in the facts of this
case especially when the LIC has been careful in
making an express provision in the
Regulations/Rules, which are statutory in nature,
indicating that the agents are not authorised to
collect any moneys or accept any risk on behalf of the
LIC and they collect so only if they are expressly
authorised to do so.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iv) Judgment, dated 08.02.2019 delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.1575 of 2019 (Tanu Ram Bora /v/ Promod
Ch.Das), wherein it is held in paragraph No.8 as follows:
''8. An identical question came to be
considered by this court in the case of Ram Pyare
(supra). In the aforesaid decision, on considering
the Section 43 of the Act, it is observed and held by
this Court that as the sale deed in favour of the
vendee was result of an erroneous representation
of the vendor, thereafter, the sons of the vendor,
cannot claim to be transferees in good faith and
therefore their suit for cancellation of the sale deed
would not be maintainable.''
(v) 2023-2 Law Weekly 229 (G.V.Films Limited /v/ M/s
Prabhaudas Gurumukh Singh & Ors.), wherein it is held in paragraph
Nos.18 and 19 as follows:
''18. In the present case also the said
“Doctrine of Indooor Management’ or Turquand’s
Rule can be applied. This Court does not find any
malafides or lack of bonafides on the part of the
1st respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff/1st
respondent had all reasons to believe the
representations of the Chairman and Managing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Director of the appellant/1st defendant. The
“Doctrine of Indoor Management’’ has been
followed in various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as this Court. In this case also this
Court deem it fit to apply said Doctirne and holds
that the plaintiff/1st respondent cannot be made to
suffer because of the internal transaction that are
now put against the plaintiff/1st respondent to
defeat the suit claim.
19. This Court has already found that the
Chairman and Managing Director has represented
himself only on behalf of the appellant/1st
defendant company. The mere fact that there was
no resolution or authorisation for the said
M.G.Venkateswaran to borrow monies from the
plaintiff cannot be put against the 1st
respondent/plaintiff in order to defeat their lawful
entitlement of the monies borrowed from them.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has
contended that the suit property with a larger extent was purchased in the
name of society through its then Secretary Lottiya Anumandhair
Ramamoorthy. The defendant admitted in their written statement that the suit
property belonged to the plaintiff's society. As per terms and bye-law, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
society has to sell its property to its members alone. The defendants are not
members of the society and the same is also admitted. The defendants
evasively denied the averments, they have not denied them specifically and
so it should be taken to be admission of plaint averments as per Order 8 Rule
5 of the Civil Procedure Code. When the plaintiff raised the plea that the
defendants’ sale deed got executed by fraud and impersonation, it is for the
defendants to discharge the basic duty to produce the document to support
his contention according to Order 8 Rule 1A of the Civil Procedure Code,
here, the defendants have not produced any piece of document in support of
their stand. The alleged power of attorney executed by Lalli Anumandhair
Ramamoorthy is a non-existing person. The then Secretary of the plaintiff's
society is Lottiya Anumandhair Ramamoorthy. The thumb impression of the
said Lottiya Anumandhair Ramamoorthy was examined by the forensic
department and found that the thumb impression in the power of attorney
deed is not that of Lottiya Anumandhair Ramamoorthy. So, the alleged
power of attorney deed is a fraud document, which was executed by
impersonation. The defendants purchased the suit properties through the
fraud power of attorney deed. Hence, the said sale deeds are also not valid in
the eye of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the
plaintiff proved its case before the trial Court. The defendants have to prove
that they purchased the suit property from authorized person. At the time of
alleged sale deeds - Exs.A.10, 11, one Sivasankaran was the Secretary of the
society, the L.A.Ramamoorthy was not the Secretary of the society. It is also
pertinent to mention that for fraudulent activities made by the defendants
along with other persons, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu
Cooperative Society Act was ordered in which L.A.Ramamoorthy denied the
execution of any power of attorney in favour of said Navanathan. In power
of attorney executed in favour of Navanathan by one Lalli A.Ramamoorthy.
The real name of L.A.Ramamoorthy is Lottiya A.Ramamoorthy, this would
alone suffice that the alleged power of attorney is created one. The
defendants could not be taken the plea of the ostensible owner since the
plaintiff is the original owner who lodged a criminal complaint against the
said Navanathan and 3 others and a charge sheet was also filed against them.
The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of possession based on the title
under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, so the limitation would not arise. The
plaintiff proved its case before the trial Court and the same was confirmed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the first Appellate Court. The defendants have not established their case by
producing acceptable documents. Even for the sake of argument, the
Navanathan & L.A.Ramamoorthy were not added as parties to the suit, the
defendants can file a petition to implead them in the suit. The failure on their
part to implead the said Navanathan & L.A.Ramamoorthy is also inferred
against the defendants that the defendants have no valid case. The Courts
below correctly appreciated the evidences adduced on either side and
correctly passed judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore,
this Second Appeal may be dismissed.
15. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property with a larger
extent belonged to the plaintiff A.1362 Meenakshi Co-operative Building
Society Limited, Madurai. The property was purchased by the society
through the then Secretary one L.A.Ramamoorthy for the affairs of the
plaintiff society in the year 1962 and subsequently, the society sorted
housing plots and sold the same to the society members. The plaintiff came
to know that in the year 1996, the defendants purchased the suit property
from one Navanathan, who is the alleged power of attorney of
L.A.Ramamoothy. It is the specific case that during the year 1996,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.A.Ramamoorthy was not the Secretary, one Sivasankaran was the secretary
and the defendants purchased the suit property by impersonation and fraud.
Moreover, the alleged sale deeds stands in the name of the defendants shows
that one Lalli Anumandhair Ramamoorthy (L.A.Ramamoorthy) through
power of attorney Navanathan sold the property. In fact, L.A.Ramamoorthy
denotes Lottiya Anumandhair Ramamoorthy. The society lodged a criminal
complaint and in the criminal case, it was revealed that the alleged thumb
impression of L.A.Ramamoorthy found in the Power of Attorney deed is not
matched with the thumb impression of L.A.Ramamoorthy. In Section 81 of
the Tamilnadu Co-Operative Societies Act enquiry, L.A.Ramamoorthy
categorically stated that he never sold the suit property to the defendants.
So, the plaintiff filed the suit.
16. It is the case of the defendants that they are bonafide purchasers
and it is the onus of proof on the plaintiff to prove that the sale deeds were
executed by impersonation and fraud. The plaintiff failed to implead the said
L.A.Ramamoorthy and Navanathan as parties to the suit. The trial Court
erred in coming to the conclusion on the basis of the criminal case filed
against Navanathan and the forensic report filed in that case. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
observation of courts below that the burden on defendants to prove the sale
deeds are valid is not correct.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a reported decision in 2004 (9)
SCC 468 in Krishna Mohan kul Alias Mani Charan Kul and anr /v/
Pratima Maity and others observed that
"When fraud, mis-representation or undue
influence is alleged by a party in a suit,
normally, the burden is on him to prove such
fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation.
But, when a person is in a fiduciary relationship
with another and the latter is in a position of
active confidence the burden of proving the
absence of fraud, misrepresentation or undue
influence is upon the person in the dominating
position, he has to prove that there was fair play
in the transaction and that the apparent is the
real, in other words, that the transaction is
genuine and bonafide.... this principle has been
engrained in section 111 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872....The transaction is not necessarily void
ipso facto, nor is it necessary for those who
impeach it to establish that there has been fraud
or imposition, but the burden of establishing its
perfect fairness, adequacy and equity is cast
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon the person in whom the confidence has
been reposed. The rule applies equally to all
persons standing in confidential relations with
each other."
It is settled that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
Second Appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact however gross the
error may be. Bar is erected under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code
forbidding the High Court to interfere in a finding of fact in the Second
Appeal. It is also a settled position that fraud in civil cases need not be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it is sufficient to conclude based on
preponderance of probabilities.
18. In this case on hand, there is no dispute that the suit property with
a larger extent was purchased in the name of L.A.Ramamoorthy representing
the plaintiff society. The plaintiff states that the L.A.Ramamoorthy is Lottia
Anumandhair Ramamoorthy where in the sale deed it is mentioned as Lalli
Anumandhair Ramamoorthy, so he was impersonated. To prove its stand the
plaintiff produced a criminal complaint and investigation report wherein it is
stated that the thumb impression of L.A.Ramamoorthy finds in the sale deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of defendants, differed from the original thumb impression of
L.A.Ramamoorthy. Moreover, at the time alleged sale in the year 1996,
L.A.Ramamoorthy was not Secretary to the society, one Sivasankaran was
the Secretary. On perusal of records, the defendants have not disputed these
facts and they did not let in any contra documentary evidence. So, the
defendants have not discharged their liability to prove that the transaction
was fair one. So, the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the sale
deed of the defendants are fraud one.
19. The defendants further contended that the suit property with a
larger extent was purchased by L.A. Ramamoorthy, and so the plaintiff
cannot state that the said Ramamoorthy has no authority to sell the property.
As per Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the purchase of the
property is valid one and also the defendants are bonafide purchasers for
valuable sale consideration. The contention is not acceptable. Because the
property was purchased by L.A.Ramamoorthy representing the society in the
year 1996 and the said L.A.Ramamoorthy was not Secretary, one
Sivasankaran was the Secretary. This was not disproved by the defendants.
So, the contention of the defendants has no merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. The citation relied on by the appellants/defendants in 2023-2 LW
229, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.1575/2019 and judgement dated 04.04.1997 in the case of Harsad
J.Shah & Anr /v/ LIC of India are not applicable to the facts of the case. In
those cases there was elicited indoor management. But, in this case, there is
no such mismanagement or misunderstanding between the secretaries. The
plaintiff proves that L.A.Ramamoorty resigned his Secretary post and
thereafter, on Sivasankaran was the Secretary at the time of sale deed in the
year 1996. The defendants have not disproved these facts.
21. Admittedly, the suit property with a larger extent was purchased by
the society and the society sold out housing plots to its members. The
defendants have not established that they are members of the society. The
contention of the defendants that after purchase they can be registered as
members is not established by producing sufficient acceptable materials by
the defendants.
22. Another contention is that the plaintiff has not sought any prayer to
declare the sale deeds as null and void and has not filed the suit within the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
limitation period and so, the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff seeking
relief under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The Trial Court has correctly
framed the issue regarding limitation and correctly arrived conclusion that
the plaintiff can be entitled to seek recovery of possession from the
defendants, who purchased the property through fraudulent deeds in view of
the citation in AIR 2000 SC 1099. There is nothing wrong in it. The alleged
fraudulent sale deed took place in the year 1996 and the suit was filed in
2007 so, the suit is within the limitation, as protected under Article 65 of the
Limitation Act.
23. As stated supra, the Courts below correctly applied and understood
Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, Sections 41 and 43 of the
Transfer of Property Act and correctly came to a conclusion in favour of the
plaintiff. Therefore, this Court holds that Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.11 - sale deeds
came to be transacted by playing fraud and the defendants are not bona fide
purchasers as concluded by the Courts below. The citations relied on by the
defendants' side are not applicable to the facts of this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24. Considering the facts and evidences adduced by both sides, this
Court holds that the alleged sale agreement is not valid in the eye of law and
the courts below have properly appreciated the evidences taking into
consideration of the legally settled principles in this regard. Hence, all the
questions of law raised in this Second Appeal are answered against the
appellants/defendants. Thus, this Second Appeal fails.
25. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and
decree dated 23.04.2015 passed in A.S.No.21 of 2013 on the file of the
learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 21.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.126 of 2007 on the file of the
learned I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai are confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
VSD
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The IV Additional District Judge,
Madurai.
2.The I Additional Sub Judge,
Madurai.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
