ULTRA MARINA & PIGMENTS LTD Vs. KALA KARMEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful Plaintiff is the Appellant before us. The Plaintiff filed a Suit in O.S. No.36 of 2011, before the Additional District Court, Dindigul for declaring its Title to the Suit property and for consequential relief for Recovery of Possession from the Defendants and also for Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to remove the encroachments and superstructures put up in the Suit property.

(2.) (i) The brief facts of the case pleaded by the Plaintiff are that the Plaintiff is the Owner of the Suit property, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed, dtd. 22/5/1982. In the year 1996, the Second Defendant, who is the husband of the First Defendant, approached the Plaintiff's Company with an offer to find a suitable Purchaser for the Suit property or in the alternative, purchase it for himself, for a price to be agreed later. According to the Plaintiff, the Second Defendant advanced a sum of Rs.47,00,000.00 and it was agreed that the said amount would be adjusted at the time of final settlement of the Sale transaction. In view of the payment of Rs.47,00,000,.00 the Plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd Defendant's Wife, namely, the First Defendant on 10/10/1996.

(3.) The First Defendant filed a Written Statement stating that the Plaintiff had executed a Power of Attorney in her favour in order to sell the Suit property. According to the First Defendant, the entire Sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000.00 was paid in the year 1996 itself, and instead of a Sale Deed, the Plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney. The further contention of the First Defendant is that in furtherance of the Power of Attorney, he executed a Sale Agreement on 10/4/2000, after receiving an Advance amount of 4,00,000. The First Defendant reiterated the alleged payments made on 1/11/1996, 22/7/1998, 16/12/1999 and lastly on 10/4/2000. The First Defendant further states that the Third Defendant paid a further sum of Rs.8,00,000.00 to her and a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 alone remained to be paid by the Third Defendant. Considering the said payments, the First Defendant handed over possession to the Third Defendant, under an Agreement, dtd. 26/4/2000, permitting the Third Defendant to develop the property and also fence the same. The First Defendant has further stated that the Power of Attorney was admittedly cancelled only on 12/7/2000 and the Sale Agreement was executed much earlier on 10/4/2000 and therefore, the Agreement was valid and binding on the Plaintiff. The First Defendant also refers to the Suit in O.S.No.148 of 2000 filed by the Third Defendant and stated that Suit was decreed and confirmed in an Appeal and as against the same, the Plaintiff had preferred the Second Appeal and the same is pending before the High Court. The First Defendant further pleads the defence of limitation as the Suit has been filed after 15 years from the date of possession being handed over to the Third Defendant.