Madras High Court
A.Shanthi vs G.Jayaraman on 1 April, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.468 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.468 of 2024
and CMP.No.14069 of 2024
A.Shanthi ... Appellant
Versus
1.G.Jayaraman
2.V.Nirmala
3.S.Veeramani
V.Srinivasan (Died)
4.S.Venkatalakshmi
V.Sivalingam (Died)
5.V.Vijayakumar
6.G.K.S.Chandrasekaran ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 18.03.2024 in O.S.No.204 of 2017 on the file of I
Additional District Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondent : Mr.V.Sekar for R1
Mr.P.Mathivanan for R3
R2 and R4 – Left
No appearance for R5 and R6
Page 1 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
A.S.No.468 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit
filed for declaration, permanent injunction and canceling the decree passed in
O.S.No.161 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem in
favour of the first defendant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed to as per their own
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Brief background of filing this appeal are as follows:
3.a. The Plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the defendants 6 and
7 through their power of attorney agent, the 8th defendant on 09.08.2011. Ever
since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of
the suit property and mutation of revenue records have also taken place in her
name. The property originally belonged to the second defendant by virtue of a sale
deed dated 30.04.1996, she has executed a power of attorney in favour of 3rd
defendant on 24.08.2005. According to the plaintiff, the said power of attorney is
not intended for the purpose stated therein. That power of attorney was executed
between the defendants 2 and 3 when their relationship was cordial, however, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
3rd defendant in order to create false documents obtained a sham and nominal
stamped receipt from the second defendant on the very same day of power of
attorney deed dated 24.08.2005. Further, the third defendant had falsely created
another sham and nominal sale agreement in favour of the 1st defendant on
28.03.2007. Though 11 months time was agreed for completion of sale, the very
next date of the sale agreement, i.e., on 29.03.2007, an endorsement was made in
the agreement as if the remaining sale consideration is also passed.
3.b. Thereafter, the second defendant had orally cancelled the power of
attorney and sold the property in favour of the defendants 4 and 5 on 30.03.2007.
The defendants 4 and 5 sold the property on 07.09.2010 and 14.09.2010
respectively. The plaintiff has purchased the property from the defendants 6 and 7
through their power agent/8th defendant. In the meanwhile, the first defendant has
filed a suit in OS.No.161 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Salem
through the first defendant for specific performance based on the agreement dated
28.03.2007 and the said suit ha been decreed. According to the plaintiff, he is only
a bonafide purchaser from rightful owners for valid consideration. Hence, the
decree and judgment passed in favour of the first defendant is a result of fraud.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
The sale agreement in favour of the first respondent is sham and nominal without
sale consideration. Further, the earlier suit is barred by limitation.
3.c. It is the contention of the first defendant in the written statement that in
O.S.No.161 of 2011, an application in I.A.No.401 of 2013 has been filed by the
defendants 6,7 and 8 to implead the plaintiff as the 8th defendant and the said
application was dismissed. Further, in the said suit, the first defendant has
obtained injunction against the defendants therein not to alienate the suit property,
inspite of the same, the 8th defendant has executed the sale deed dated 09.08.2011
in favour of the plaintiff and such sale is void ab-initio as it was executed during
the pendency of injunction order. The suit is barred under res-judicata and also be
lis pendens.
3.d. It is the contention of the 3rd defendant in the written statement that he
had entered into a sale agreement dated 28.03.2007 with the first defendant to sell
the suit property for a valid consideration on the strength of power of attorney
given by the second defendant. It is also stated by the third defendant that the
possession was handed over to the first defendant on 29.03.2007. The first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.161 of 2011 seeking specific performance,
wherein, all the defendants were parties and a decree was passed in favour of the
first defendant on 08.08.2014 for specific performance. The plaintiff bases title to
the suit property from its previous owners, who derive title from sale deeds date
30.03.2007, 07.09.2010 and 14.09.2010 and the same were declared as null and
void. In spite of the injunction granted by the Trial Court, the 8th defendant has
executed the sale deed dated 09.08.2011 and such sale is void ab initio and there is
no cause of action for the suit. Hence, opposed the suit.
3.e. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable as such the plaintiff vender's title documents
were declared as null and void in the earlier suit in O.S.No.161/2011?
2. Whether the plaintiff can maintain the present suit to cancel the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.161/2011 as such his vender's are parties to the suit?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of cancellation of decree in
O.S.No.161/2011?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
6. What other relief?
3.f. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1
to A17 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the first defendant was
examined as DW1 and no exhibits were marked.
3.g. The Trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidences had
dismissed the suit. Challenging the said decree and judgment, the present appeal is
filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has
purchased the property for a valid consideration and she is a bonafide purchaser of
the property. According to him, though the first defendant in the suit claims to
have purchased the property vide an agreement entered on 28.03.2007 under
Ex.A7 had received advance and on the very next day, remaining amount has been
paid and endorsement has been obtained. These facts clearly shows that the very
agreement itself is a created one. At any event, power of attorney given to the third
defendant is already cancelled and the property has been sold to the defendants 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
and 5 on 30.03.2007. The defendants 4 and 5 sold the property on 07.09.2010 and
14.09.2010 respectively. The plaintiff has purchased the property from the
defendants 6 and 7 through their power agent/8th defendant. Hence, it is the
contention that the very suit filed by the first defendant for enforcing the contract
dated 28.03.2007 itself is not maintainable and the suit was barred by limitation
and the defendants colluded together in the suit and allowed to the decree to be
passed. Hence, seeks for allowing this appeal.
5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that in the
earlier suit filed for specific performance, the defendants 6,7 and 8 filed an
application in I.A.No.401 of 2013 to implead the plaintiff in the suit and the same
was dismissed on merits. Further the earlier suit was contested and the decree has
been passed. The very sale in favour of the appellant has been made violating the
injunction granted by the Trial Court in the earlier suit in O.S.No.161 of 2011.
That apart the sale is hit by doctrine of lis pendens. Hence, seeks for dismissal of
this appeal.
6. In light of the above pleadings and submissions, now the following issues
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
arise for consideration:-
(i). Whether the appellant can seek declaration to annul the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.161 of 2011 on the ground the earlier suit filed for specific
performance is barred by limitation?
(ii). Is there any plea of fraud established by the appellant?
(iii) To what other reliefs?
Points (i) to (iii)
7. The suit has been filed by the appellant mainly to set aside the decree and
judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.161 of 2011. The suit in O.S.No.161 of
2011 has been filed by the first defendant in the present suit to enforce the
registered agreement dated 28.03.2007 on the ground that the defendants have
been evading the agreement. In the said suit, the vendors of the appellant were
made as parties and they were defendants and they had contested the matter. In the
said suit, the vendors of the appellant took a plea that they are bonafide
purchasers. However, the Trial Court negatived their right and granted the decree
for specific performance to enforce the contract dated 28.03.2007. It is relevant to
note that in the said suit, in fact, application has been taken out to implead the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
appellant and the same has been dismissed on merits. Be that as it may, in the said
suit, interim injunction was ordered by the Trial Court in favour of the first
defendant not to alienate the property. The said suit was filed on 28.04.2011 and
the plaintiff/appellant has purchased the property on 09.08.2011 during the
pendency of the suit. Therefore, violating the interim orders of the Trial Court the
purchase has been made during the pendency of the suit which will certainly get
hit under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. The doctrine of lis pendens will
certainly come into play. Further, the earlier decree and judgment has not been
challenged by the vendors. When the Trial Court has already held that the vendors
of the appellant are not bonafide purchasers and that decree has reached finality,
the appellant who had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, now
cannot re agitate the matter raising all the defense in the present suit.
8. Further, the decree and judgment cannot be challenged on the ground that
the suit is barred by limitation. In the entire evidences, there is no materials placed
to show that decree and judgment in O.S.No.161 of 2011 is filed by playing fraud.
The very purchase made by the vendors of the appellant was during the existence
of the agreement dated 28.03.2007, as long as it is not established that they are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
bonafide purchaser, their purchases is always subject to the result of the suit for
specific performance. The suit has already been decreed. Such view of the mater,
the appellant who purchased the property that too during the pendency of the suit
cannot seek better right to challenge the decree and judgment of the specific
performance already granted in favour of the first respondent. Accordingly, these
points are answered.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the appeal and this
appeal suit stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition stands closed.
01.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
To,
1. The I Additional District Judge,
I Additional District Court
Salem
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
dhk
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 07:06:06 pm )
