SAIJU Vs. MURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved and displeased with Ext.P7 judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 20/2022 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Attingal (Appellate Court), the respondent in the appeal has filed the original petition. The respondents 1 to 3 in the original petition were the appellants before the Court below.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to Ext.P7 judgment are:

(3.) The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, on behalf of herself and the respondents 1 and 3, denying the allegations in the original petition. It is her case that Ext.P2 lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. She had signed the agreement on behalf of the first respondent on the strength of a power of attorney executed by the first respondent - her father. Ext.P2 is an unregistered document. The power of attorney does not authorise her to enter an agreement in the nature of Ext.P.2. The trial Court passed Ext.P6 order of injunction without considering the facts of the case and the law on the point. Sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, prohibits the lease of the property by way of an unregistered document for a term exceeding one year. Sec. 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates that a lease of immovable property exceeding one year requires registration. Similarly, sec. 49 of the same Act lays down that an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence. The petitioner has not made out a prima facie case. In Ext.P3 agreement executed between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the petitioner has admitted that Ext P2 is a lease deed and not a deed of licence. Ext P2 is unsupported by consideration. There is no consensus ad idem between the parties. Hence, the original petition is to be dismissed.