ILANGO Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, have filed the suit in O.S. No. 49 of 2007 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry praying to direct the defendant/appellant herein to pay the sum of Rs. 42,74,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation with costs. The trial court, by Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2010, decreed the suit with costs and also directed the defendant/appellant herein to pay the sum of Rs. 42,74,540/- with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on Rs. 31,46,900/- from the date of plaint till realisation. It is as against the said decree and Judgment passed by the Court below, the sole defendant in the suit has filed the present appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs, as could be unfolded from the plaint filed before the trial court, is that they are the lawful owners of the suit property. During the year 2004, on behalf of promoters of a Dental College and Hospital, the defendant approached the plaintiffs for getting the suit property for development of the above institution. Accordingly, on 18.08.2004, the plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant for the purpose of transferring the suit property in favour of the promoter. The said power of attorney deed was also registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret. It is clearly stated in the power of attorney deed that the defendant shall furnish the particulars of the prospective purchaser, in whose favour, the plaintiffs shall execute the sale deed upon fixing the sale price of the land. On execution of the power of attorney deed, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the plaintiffs as advance.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant/appellant by filing a written statement. In the written statement, the defendant has admitted the execution of the power of attorney deed by the plaintiffs in his favour on 18.08.2004 and on the basis of the same, he has alienated the suit property in favour of Madammal Sheela Charitable Trust on 19.08.2004 by executing a sale deed in his capacity as power of attorney deed. However, it is contended that the entire transaction took place with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that there is no specific or restricted authority cast upon the defendant in the power of attorney deed dated 18.08.2004 which would restrain him from executing the sale deed in favour of the Trust. The deed of power of attorney only contained general clauses like maintenance of the land, guarding the lands, leasing out the lands etc., There was no obligation cast on the defendant to furnish the details of the intended land owners to the plaintiffs, as stated in the plaint. While so, what was not agreed between the plaintiffs and defendants will not give rise to a cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. The defendant therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.