Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi & Ors.
A.S. No. 644 of 2019
Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete
Overview
The appeal was brought by a judgment given by the I Additional District Court, Salem in a case wherein a sale deed and a connected sale agreement of 04.10.2013 had been pronounced as null and void by the judgment. The case was related to allegations of a power of attorney and a sale agreement used for securing a loan but instead misused by the defendants in committing a fraud in conveying the plaintiff’s property. The Madras High Court considered cases of fraud, abuse of power of attorney by a power agent, passing of consideration, and obtaining a money decree in absence of pleadings.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, Jayalakshmi, sought absolute ownership over the suit property. Seeing that she was in dire need of money owing to the funeral expenses for her deceased son and the consequent financial difficulties, she sought a loan of₹ 5,00,000 in June 2013 from the second defendant, who was a close relative. The plaintiff alleged that the loan was obtained by executing a power of attorney in favour of the second defendant and a sale agreement in favour of the first defendant on 17.06.2013.
The plaintiff alleged that the second defendant cancelled, without her knowledge or consent, the agreement of selling the property in a previous transaction, and in exercise of the power of attorney, a sale deed was entered into on the 04.10.2013 in favor of the third defendant. The third defendant also entered into another sale agreement on the same date with the first defendant. The plaintiff also alleged that no consideration for the sales took place. The documents were collusive in nature. The purpose is to snatch away her properties.
The defendants contended that the plaintiff intended to sell the property outright, that she insisted on early completion, and that the sale deed was executed with her knowledge and after full payment of ₹15,52,500. They relied on a life certificate, a receipt for consideration, and the authority conferred under the power of attorney.
Legal Issues
- Whether the sale deed dated 04.10.2013 executed by the power agent was valid in law.
- Whether the sale agreement dated 04.10.2013 between the first and third defendants was genuine and binding.
- Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.
- Whether the trial court was justified in directing the plaintiff to repay ₹5,00,000 to the second defendant in the absence of a counter-claim.
Decision and Reasoning
The High Court confirmed the trial court’s conclusion of invalidity of sale deed and sale agreement. It held that transactions were shrouded with suspicious circumstances regarding contradictory versions about consideration, non-finding of proof about the date of payment, execution of more than one document on the same date and misuse of the power of attorney, the explanation by the plaintiff, executing the documents as security to a loan was more probable than the case of the defendants.
On possession, the Court held that since the property was vacant land, possession follows title. As the sale deed was invalid, title and possession, at least a deemed one, remained with the plaintiff.
Importantly, the High Court set aside the direction issued by the trial court for the plaintiff to pay ₹5,00,000 to the second defendant on the ground that no court can decree a money claim against the plaintiff in favour of the defendant who had neither pleaded nor prayed for such a relief. The grant of relief ultra petita thus was held as a jurisdictional error.
The appeal was dismissed, confirmation was given to the declaration of invalidity of the sale deed, and the money decree was set aside, as well as treatment of costs.
