S K SHANMUGHAM Vs. RABIA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiffs/Respondents 1 to 4 herein is as follows:- a. The suit property bearing Door No.56, Udumansa Street, Brahmana Peria Agraharam Village, Erode Town, belonged to one late C.S.Z.Aducam Basha, who died on 4.8.1999 and he was buried on 4.8.1999 according to the Muslim Rites and Customs and the Plaintiffs/the Respondents 1 to 4 herein are his mother, wife and children, who, after his demise, inherited the properties under Muslim law. While, C.S.Z.Aducam Basha was doing business, it appears that he was borrowing monies from the Defendants, who are doing finance business. The Plaintiffs came to know that the 3rd Defendant, claiming to be the Power Agent of C.S.Z.Aducam Basha, had executed a sale deed dated 3.8.1999 for Rs.1,30,000/- in favour of the Defendants 1 and 2 and presented the same for Registration on 5.8.1999 and got registered the same as Doc.No.2777. The said sale deed is a fraudulent and collusive document, as the power of attorney dated 14.2.1997 does not empower the third Defendant to execute any sale deed in favour of the Defendants 1 and 2. b. Though the sale deed is dated 3.8.1999, the same was not executed on 3.8.1999 and fraudulently, it was presented for Registration on 5.8.1999 with full knowledge of the death of C.S.Z.Aducam Basha and burial, thereby the Defendants committed the offence of breach of trust. On the death of the Principal on 4.8.1999, the power of attorney dated 14.2.1997 got terminated on 4.8.1999 and the presentation of the sale deed 5.8.1999 is also invalid. The Plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit property and the Defendants are not in possession of the suit property. Even if there is a recital in the sale deed that possession has been delivered to the Defendants, the said recital should be false. Since the Defendants attempted to interfere with the suit property, the suit has been filed for permanent injunction.

(3.) The case of the Defendants is as follows:- a. The Plaintiffs are fully aware of the execution of the registered sale agreement in February 1997 and the receipt of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the deceased, the registered power of attorney dated 14.2.1997 and the sale deed dated 5.8.1999. The said sale deed was executed by the 3rd Defendant as the power of Attorney agent C.S.Z.Aducam Basha in pursuance of the power of attorney dated 14.2.1997. By virtue of the said power of attorney, the power agent is empowered to execute any document of alienation in favour of the third parties and hence, the sale deed is valid and the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to question the registered sale agreement and the power of attorney deed dated 14.2.1997 and sale deed dated 3.8.1999. b. As per the provisions contemplated under Rule 32 of the Registration Rules, the date of execution of the document is the date on which it is signed by the parties. According to Section 23 of the Registration Act, the document can be presented for registration within four months from the date of its execution. Therefore, the sale deed dated 3.8.1999 and its subsequent Registration are legally valid and the Plaintiffs cannot question the execution and its Registration. They are estopped from contending that the sale deed dated 3.8.1999 is anti dated and the same was fraudulently presented for Registration on 5.8.1999 and the Defendants are not aware of the death of the C.S.Z.Aducam Basha on the date of presentation i.e. on 5.8.1999. The mutation of records in respect of the suit property had already been effected in favour of the Defendants 1 and 2 and the Defendants 1 and 2 had paid the property tax in their name for the periods 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and hence, the suit is not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed.