IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE AT CHENGALPATTU

O. S. No. 125 OF 2016

Mrs.P.C.Sasimala ... Plaintiff

-Vs-

1. Mr.G.Gnanabarathidasan, s/o Guruviah,

2. Mrs. Pandiselvi s/o Guruviah ... Defendants

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS

The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

1. The plaintiff humbly submits that the property more fully described hereunder in the
schedule is herein after called the suit property. The property is owned and possessed by the
plaintiffs husband Mr.G.Victor Jesudoss. The Plaintiff submits that her husband got the suit
property by d the way of oral Partition between his father and his brothers.
2. The plaintiff states that her husband has appointed the 1 st defendant as a power of
attorney agent by registered Power of Attorney document No.285/1996 dated 25.10.1996 in
the Sub Registrar Office at Chengalpattu, Joint-II. On the same day the plaintiff’s husband
had executed a sale agreement to and in favour of the 2 nd defendant by registered as
documents No.3031/1006 in the Sub Registrar Office at Thirukazhukundram.
3. The plaintiff states that on 10 04.1996 the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu has received
the report from the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram based on the report submitted by the
Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu initiated the suo motto
proceedings and thereby cancelled the Patta stands in the name of plaintiff’s husband by
order in proceedings R.C.No.54709/98/N4, on the ground that the plaintiffs husband has not
resided in the suit property for continues period of Thirty years and on the ground that the
Patta should not have been issued to the vacant site. Aggrieved by the order of the Sub
Collector, Chengalpattu the plaintiff’s husband had preferred appeal to the District Revenue
Officer, Kancheepuram (D.R.O.) on 19.04.1996, the said D.R.O., Kancheepuram was
confirmed the order of the Sub Collector, Chengalpatttu stating that the plaintiff’s husband
had not produced any documents to prove his possession and enjoyment of the suit property
for the period of continuous 30 years.
4. The plaintiff states that her husband personally informed to the 1 st and 2nd defendants
about the cancellation of Patta by the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu and the plaintiff’s husband
required the 1st and 2nd defendant not to act upon the Power of Attorney deed and Sale
Agreement and thereby orally cancelled the authority given to the 1ª defendant; subsequently
the Plaintiff's husband returned the entire advance amount to the 2 nd Defendant and cancelled
the sale agreement orally. The defendants also handed over the entire original parent
documents pertaining to the suit property to the plaintiff’s husband which was handed over
by him at the time of execution of Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the 1st defendant. The
plaintiff further submits that the first defendant and the plaintiff's husband are close friends.
Hence the plaintiff's husband has not taken any action to cancel the Power of Attorney deed
which has been given to the first defendant and sale agreement executed to and in favour of
first defendant's mother. Moreover the first defendant and second defendant also assured and
promised the plaintiff's husband that they won't deal with the suit property or claim any right
over the suit property. Apart from these the first and second defendant having received the
entire advance amount from the plaintiff's husband, they promised to cooperate for the
cancellation of Power of Attorney deed and sale agreement deed executed by the Plaintiff's
husband in favour of the first defendant and second defendant respectively as and when
required by the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff's husband
reposing confidence, trust and faith with the first and second defendant has not taken any
steps to cancel the Power of Attorney deed and Sale agreement.
5. The Plaintiff further states that the Plaintiff's husband and other affected parties have
filed W.P. against the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, dated
19.4.1999 in W.JA.Nos.8658/2009, 8659/2009 and 8660/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court
of Judicature at Madras. The Plaintiff further states that, the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature, Madras passed a Common Order dated 17.04.2009 in W.P.No.8658/2009,
8659/2009 and 8660/2009 and thereby set aside the orders passed by the District revenue
Officer, Kancheepuram dated 19.04.1999 and remitted the case to DRO, Kancheepuram to
conduct a fresh enquiry and pass fresh orders after serving notice the Plaintiffs husband
within Three months. The Plaintiffs husband has submitted that all documents for evidence to
prove the Possession and enjoyment of the suit property, before the D.R.O. Kancheepuram.
However the D.RO. Kancheepuram has not considered the evidence and finally confirmed
the order of Sub Collector, Chengalpattu. After that the Plaintiff's husband had preferred an
Appeal before the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk,
on 21.10.2010 and the same was enquired before the Land Commissioner and the Land
Commissioner enquired the Petition and passed an order to set aside the order of D.R.O,
Kancheepuram.
6. The Plaintiff further states that based on the Order of Commissioner of Land
Administration, the Tahsildar, Thirukazhukundram issued the Patta No.952 in The name of
Plaintiff's husband on 10.12.2010. The plaintiff further states that, after getting the Patta the
Plaintiff's husband put-up a compound wall to the suit property and obtained electricity
connection in his name (Electricity Connection No.09-574-012-1614) and the plaintiff's
husband was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

7. The Plaintiff further states that, the Plaintiff's husband had executed a Settlement deed
to and in favour of the Plaintiff by registered document No.3547/2016 dated 15.07.2016 in
the Sub Registrar Office at Thirukazhukundram. Ever since the date of Settlement deed the
plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property as an absolute owner
thereof.

8. The Plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff with an intention to make residential
complex in the suit property, required a loan from the Bank then the Plaintiff herein had
applied for Encumbrance certificate on 29.9.2016 with regard to the suit property, on go-
thronging the Encumbrance Certificate appalling to the plaintiff, she came to know that the 1
defendant had executed a Sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant by registered document
No.2566/1999 dated 22.10.1999 in the Sub Registrar Office at Thirukkalukundram. The
Plaintiff states that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are very well known all the issues and facts of
the suit property and also the plaintiff's husband personally informed to the 1st and 2nd
defendants about the legal proceedings is against the Orders of Sub Collector, Chengalpattu
and D.R.O, Kancheepuram. Moreover, the first defendant and second defendant are mother
and son. The Plaintiff further submits that the first and second defendants with an evil
machination to grab the suit property from the plaintiff's husband created the sham and
nominal document i.e., Sale deed dated 22.10.1999 executed by the first defendant in favour
of the second defendant. The Plaintiff further submits that the second defendant having
received the entire advance amount from the plaintiff's husband has got no locus stands to get
the Sale deed registered from the first defendant. Moreover, the first defendant after knowing
that the Patta stands in the name of the plaintiff's husband was cancelled; first defendant had
assured and promised the plaintiff's husband that the first defendant won't deal with the suit
property based on the Power of Attorney deed executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of
1st defendant. Further contradicting the oral cancellation power given to the 1st defendant
and undertaking and promise given by the first defendant not to deal with the suit property,
the first defendant with a malafide intention to grab the suit property without paying sale
consideration created a sham and nominal Sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant. The Sale
deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is not valid in the eye
of law and it has got no legal sanctity and the Sale deed is not legally sustainable and not
binding the plaintiff or plaintiff's husband. Fact the first defendant has got no real stands to
act as an agent on behalf of the plaintiff's husband since; mutually it was orally cancelled by
the plaintiff and the first defendant. The first defendant having given undertaking and
promise that she won't deal with the suit property based on the Power of Attorney deed the
first defendant is stopped from executing the Sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant. The
plaintiff further submits the plaintiff herein has approached the defendants in the first week of
October 2016 and required them to cancel the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in
favour 2nd defendant for which the defendants refused to do so, further the defendants
attempted to trespass into the suit property in the 2nd week of October 2016 and the same
was resisted by the plaintiff and now the 2nd defendant is seriously making arrangements to
release the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant which was
pending in the file of Thirukazhukundram Sub Register Office under section 47 of Stamp Act
in order to sell the suit property to third parties and if they successfully do so it Esc will cause
irreparable injury and heavy loss to the plaintiff.
9. The Plaintiff further states that the said Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement and Sale
Deeds are not only invalid and not binding on the Plaintiff and will not affect her title and
possession. The above said documents are to be declared as NULL AND VOID and the
Defendants has to be restrained from in anyway not interfering with Plaintiff's Peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and alienating or selling the suit property. The
Copy of Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement etc. are also filed herewith and the same may be
read as part and parcel thereof. Further the sale deed in favour of second defendant is pending
before the concerned Sub Register Office under sec.47 the plaintiff couldn't obtain certified
copy of sale deed in favour of second defendant.
10. The Plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree
and judgment in her favour against the defendants:-
(1) To Declare the POWER OF ATTORNEY, dt.25.10.1996 vide Document No:
285/1996 of S.R.O., Chengalpattu Joint-II, executed by Plaintiff's husband in
favour of 1 Defendant as NULL AND VOID,
(2) To Declare the SALE AGREEMENT DEED, dt.25.10.1996 vide Document
No:3031/1996 of S.R.O.Thirukazhukundram, executed by Plaintiff's husband
represented by 1st Defendant in favour of 2nd Defendant as NULL AND VOID,
(3) To Declare the SALE DEED, dt.22.10.1999 vide Document No:2566/1999 of
S.R.O.Thirukazhukundram, executed by 1s™ Defendant in favour of 2nd
Defendant as NULL AND VOID,
(4) Granting PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, their men,
agent/s and servant/s from interfering with the Plaintiff's Peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property.
(5) Granting PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd Defendant, their men,
agent/s and servant/s from in any way selling or encumbering of the suit property.
(6) Awarding the Cost of the Suit
(7) Such other suitable relief and reliefs.

The case of the defendants is as follows:

rKfk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; Nkw;gb mry; tof;fpd; thjp jhf;fy; nra;Js;s gpuhjpy;

nrhy;ypAs;s rq;fjpfis tpah[;[pakha; xg;Gf;nfhs;sf; $baitfis jtpu kw;witfis Nkwgb mry;
tof;fpd; gpujpthjpfs; kWf;fpwhh;fs;. Nkw;gb gpuhJ epiyf;f $bajhf ,y;iy. Nkw;gb gpuhJ
tprhuizapNyNa js;Sgb nra;a Ntz;bajhf cs;sJ.
1. gpuhJ ghuh 1 kw;Wk; 2-y; thjp nry;ypAs;s rq;fjpfis tof;fpd; gpujpthjpfs;
xg;Gf;nfhs;s $bajhf cs;sJ. mry; tof;fpd; thjp gpuhJ ghuh 2-y; nrhy;ypAs;s rq;fjpfis
nghWj;J thjpapd; fzth; 2-k; gpujpthjpaplk; 25.10.1996 Njjpapy; nra;Jnfhz;l fpiua
xg;ge;jj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; mry; tof;fpd; jgrpy; nrhj;ij fle;j 22.10.1999 Njjpapy; fpiuak;
nra;J nfhLj;Js;shh; vd;W $wpaij gpujpthjpfs; xg;Gf;nfhs;fpwhh;fs;.

2. mt;thW fpiyak 2k; gpujpthjp fpiuak; ngw;wg;gpd; jgrpy; nrhj;jhdJ fhyp ,lkhf itj;J
2-k; gpujpthjpapd; mDgtj;jpy; jw;NghJ tiu ,Ue;J tUfpwJ.

3. gpuhJ ghuh 4-y; tof;fpd; thjp nrhy;ypAs;s rq;fjpfis XusTf;F tof;fpd; gpujpthjpfs;
xg;Gf;nfhs;fpwhh;fs;.

4. ghuh 5-y; tof;fpd; thjpahdth; thjpapd; fzth; 1 kw;Wk; 2 gpujpthjpfSf;F

vOjpnfhLj;J nghJ mjpfhuk kw;Wk; fpiuak; xg;ge;jk; gjpT nra;ag;gl;l Mtzj;ij
tha;nkhopahf uj;J nra;J nfhz;ljhf $wpAs;shh; kw;Wk; fpiuak; ml;thd;]; njhifia 2k;
gpujpthjp jug;gpy; thjpapd; fzth; nfhLj;J fpiua xg;ge;jj;ij tha;nkhopahf uj;J nra;jjhfTk;
$wpAs;shh;. mt;thW $WtJ cz;ikf;F Gwk;ghditahFk;.mt;thwhd rk;gtq;fs; VJk;
eilngwtpy;iy. gpd; thjpapd; fzth; 1k; gpujpthjpf;F nfhLj;j nghJ mjpfhuj;ij uj;J nra;aTk;>
2k; gpujpthjpf;F nfhLj;j fpiua xg;ge;jj;ij uj;J nra;aTk; thjpapd; fzth; ve;j eltbf;ifAk;
nra;atpy;iy vd;W njspthfTk; gpuhjpy; $wpapUg;gijg; ghh;f;Fk;NghJ thjp tof;fpy;
nrhy;ypAs;s rq;fjpfis cz;ikf;Fg; Gwk;ghdit vd;W njhpa tUfpd;wJ.

5. NkYk; nrhj;J fpiuak; nfhLg;gth; me;j nrhj;jpy; tpy;yq;fk; VNjDk; Vw;gl;lhy; mij
jPh;j;J itf;f Ntz;baJ nrhj;ij fpiuak; nfhLg;gthpd; flikahFk;. mNj Nghd;W mry; tof;fpd;
jgrpd; nrhj;jpy; Vw;gl;Ls;s rl;l rk;ke;jkhf cs;s tpy;yq;fq;fis jPh;j;J itf;f Ntz;b tof;fpd;
thjpapd; fzth; fhQ;rpGk; b.Mh;.X. kw;Wk; cah;ePjpkd;w tof;F eltbf;iffis thjpapd; fzth;
nra;Js;shh;. ,itfis gpuhJ ghuh 6> 7> 8-y; thjp nrhy;ypAs;sit gpujpthjpfs;
Xg;Gf;nfhs;fpwhh;fs;. ,uz;khk; gpujpthjp nryT nra;J jgrpy; nrhj;jpy; Rw;WRth; (
fhk;gTz;l; thy; Nghlg;gl;lJ).
6. NkYk; gpujJ ghuh 9-y; tof;fpd; thjpahdth; fld; tq;fpapy; thq;Fk tiff;fhf fle;j
29.09.2016-y; tpy;yq;fr;rhd;W Nfl;ljhf nrhy;ypAs;shh;. mt;thW tpy;yq;fr;rhd;W thq;fpa
gpd;Gjhd; 1-k; gpujpthjp 2k; gpujpthjpf;F fle;j 22.10.1999-y; fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;j
tpguk; njhpa te;jhf $wpAs;shh;. ,it cz;ikf;F Gwk;ghdit tof;fpd; thjpapd; fztUf;F fpiuak;
nra;j tpguq;fs; ed;F njhpAk;. mij kiwj;J 1k; gpujpthjp 2k; gpujpthjpf;F fpiuak; nra;aNt
mjpfhuk; fpilahJ Nghy gpuhjpy; nrhy;ypAs;sJ jtW NkYk; thjpahdth; gpujpthjpia 2016
mf;Nlhghpy; Kjy; thuj;jpy; re;jpj;J Ngrpajhf $wpAs;shh;. filrp thuj;jpy; jhd; re;jpj;J 2k;
gpujpthjp kfhgypGuk; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; thjp tifawh kPJ Gfhh; nra;Jf;nfhz;l eltbf;iffs; jtW
vd;Wk mij jpUj;jpf;nfhs;tjhfTk; thjp $wpdhh;. tof;fpd; thjpapd; nrhy;iy gpujpthjpfs; ek;g
kWj;Js;sgbahy; gpujpthjpapd; fhty; epiya GfhUf;Fg; gpd; Nkwgb mry; tof;F
jhf;fyhfpAs;sJ.

7. NkYk; thjpapd; fzth; kw;Wk; thjpahdth; tof;fpd; gpujpthjpfis gpujpthjpfs; fpiuak;

nra;j Njjpf;Fg; gpd; Nkhrb nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;W rpy Mtzq;fis cw;gj;jp nra;J te;Js;sdh;. Mit
fle;j 02.04.2001 Njjpapy; thjpapd; fzth; fz;zd; vd;gtUf;F tof;fpd; jgrpy; nrhj;ij jd; je;ij
FUehjd; vd;gthplk; fle;j 22.12.2003 Njjpapy; nrl;by;nkd;l; vOjp thq;fpAs;shh;. mjd;
gpd;G fle;j 19.07.2006-y; mlkhdj;ij kPl;Lf;nfhz;lhh; thjpapd; fzth; 22.12.2003-y; jd; je;ij
FUehjd; vd;gthplk; nrl;by;nkd;l; ngWtjwF Kd;ghf 02.04.2001-y; mlkhdk; gjpT
nra;ag;gl;l mlkhdk; itj;J ,Ug;gJ vg;gb KbAk;. mNjNghd;W mlkhdk; kPl;l gpd;Gk;>
thjpapd; fzth; thjpf;F fle;j 15.07.2016-y; nrl;by;nkd;l; vOjp itj;jjhfTk;> mjd; mbg;gilapy;
tof;fpd; jgrpy; nrhj;J chpik cs;sJ Nghd;Wk;> tof;F jhf;fyhfp cs;sJ. ,tw;iw ghh;j;jhy;> thjp
jug;gpy; gpujpthjpia Nkhrb nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;w Nehf;fj;NjhL Nkw;gb thjp jug;gpdh;
ele;Jf;nfhs;tjhfNt njhpa tUfpwJ gpuhjpy; thjpahdth; gl;lh vz;.952 thjpapd; fzth; ngaUf;f
fle;j 10.12.2010-y; jpUf;fOf;Fd;wk; jhrpy;jhh; toq;fpajhf nrhy;yg;gl;ls;sJ. gl;lh vz;.952
fle;j 1996-f;F Kd;G thjpapd; fzth; ngahpy; ngwg;gl;lJ. Nkw;gb gl;lh uj;J 1998-y; Md
gpd; thjpapd; fzth; rl;lhPjpahd eltbf;iffs; Nkw;nfhz;L me;j gl;lh fle;j 10.12.2010-y;
ngwg;gl;lJ. rKf ePjpkd;wj;jhUf;F rpy cz;ikfis tof;fpd; gpujpthjpfshfpa ehq;fs; nfhz;L tu
flik gl;ltuhfpNwhk;. Thjpapd; je;ij 2003-k; tUlk; thjpapd; fztUf;F vOjp itj;j nrl;by;
Mtzj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; gl;lh vz;.952 ngw;W thjpf;F nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtzk; vOjp itj;Js;shh;
vd;W gpuhjpy; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb thjp ngw;gl;l nrl;by;nkz;l Mtzk; 2k;
gpujpthjpaplk; thjpapd; nrhj;jpd; gl;lh vz;.952 vd;W njspthf $wg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,itfis
ghh;j;jhy; thjp Kd;Df;F gpudhd Kiwapy; $wp tof;F jhf;fyhfpAs;sJ vd;gJ njs;sj;njspthf
njhpatUfpwJ.

8. tof;fpd; thjpahdth; rKfk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tof;fpd; jgrpy; nrhj;jhdJ mry; tof;fpd;

thjpf;F chpik cs;sJ vd tpsk;Gif ghpfhuk; gpujpthjpfSf;F vjpuhf Nfl;fg;gl;tpy;iy. khwhf
epiyAWj;Jf; fl;lis kl;LNk Nfl;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.

9. thjpahdth; rKfk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; NfhhpAs;s Kjy; ghpfhukhdJ 25.10.1996 thjpapd;

fztUk; 1k; gpujpthjpAk; nra;J nfhz;l nghJ mjpfhug; gj;jpuk; nry;yj;jf;fJ my;y vd tpsk;Gif
ghpfhuk; Nfl;Ls;shh;. nghJ mjpfhuk; nfhLj;jth; thjpapd; fzth; me;j nghJ mjpfhuj;ij uj;J
nra;J mjpfhuk; ,Uf;Fk; NghJ> Nkw;gb nghJ mjpfhuk; gjpT nra;a;gl;;l Mtzkhf cs;sjhy;>
thjpapd; fzth; Nkw;gb nghJ mjpfhuj;ij uj;J nra;ahky; tha;nkhopahf uj;J nra;Js;sjhf
,Ue;jhy;> thjpapd; fzth; jhd mt;thwhf tpsk;Gif ghpfhuk; Nfl;f eltbf;if Nkw;nfhs;syhk;
khwhf thjp Nfl;f ,ayhJ. thjpapd; fzth; nghJ mjpfhuj;ij ,d;W tiu uj;J nra;atpy;iy.

10. NkYk; thjp rKfk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; 2 Mtjhf NfhhpAs;s ghpfhuk; fle;j 25.10.1996
Njjp thjpapd; fztUk; 2k; gpujpthjpAk; nra;J nfhz;l fpiua xg;ge;jk; nry;yj;jf;fJ my;y vd
tpsk;Gif ghpfhuk; Nfl;Ls;shh;. Nkwgb fpiua xg;ge;jkhdJ tof;fpd fztUk;> 2k;
gpujpthjpAk; nra;J nfhz;ljhfk;. mij uj;J nra;a fpiua ml;thd;]; njhifapid thjpapd; fzth; 2k;
gpujpthjpaplk; nfhLj;J> Nkw;gb fpiua xg;ge;j;ij thjpapd; fzth; uj;J nra;a eltbf;if
Nkw;nfhz;bUf;f Ntz;Lk; njhif nfhLf;fTk; ,y;iy> eltbf;if VJk; nra;aTk; ,y;iy. thjpapd; fzth;
mt;thwhd eltbf;if VJk; nra;ahky; gjpT nra;ag;gl;l fpiua xg;ge;jj;ij tha;nkhopahf uj;J
nra;jjhf $wp Nkw;gb fpiua xg;ge;jk; nry;yj;jf;fJ my;y vd thjp tpsk;Gif ghpfhuk;
Nfl;Ls;shh;. mt;thW thjp ghpfhuk; Nfl;L ,Ug;gJ rl;lg;gbf;Fk;> epag;gbf;Fk;
nry;yf;$bajy;y.

11. NkYk; 25.10.1996-e; Njjp fpiua xg;ge;jj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; thjpapd; fzth; 1k;
gpujpthjpia nghJ Kftuhf epakdk; nra;J Nkw;gb thjpapd; fzthpd; Kfth; fle;j 22.10.1999
Njjpapy; 2k; gpujpthjpf;F fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;j gpd;G fpiua xg;ge;jj;ij nry;yj;jf;fJ my;y vd
tpsk;Gif ghpfhuk; thjpahy; Nfl;f KbahJ. fhy cr;r tuk;Gk; mg;ghw;gl;L fhyf;nfL
Kbe;Jtpl;ljhYk;> Nkw;gb ghpfhuk; thjpahy; Nfl;f ,ayhJ. gpd;dpl;L Nkw;gb 1 kw;Wk; 2
ghpfhuq;fSf;F thjpahy; NfhuKbahj epiyapy; 1 kw;Wk; 2 gpujpthjpfs; nra;J nfhz;l fpiua
Njjp 22.10.1999-d; Mtz vz;.2566/1999 nry;yjf;fjy;y vd tpsk;Gif ghpfhuKk; kw;Wk;
jgrpy; nrhj;J 2k; gpujpthjpapd; mDgtj;jpNyNa cs;s epiyapy; 4 kw;Wk; 5 ghpfhuq;fshd
epiyAWj;Jf; fl;lis ghpfhuKk; thjpf;F fpilf;f $baJ my;y.

12. mry; tof;fpd; jgrpy; nrhj;J thjpf;f chpik ,y;yhj epiyapy; 15.07.2016 e; Njjpapy;
thjpapd; fzthplk; ngw;w nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtzj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; tof;fpd; jgrpy; nrhj;jpy; chpil
nfhz;lhb ,e;j tof;F rl;lj;jpw;F Gwk;ghdKiwapy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. NkYk; tof;fpd; 2k;
gpujpthjpahdth; rKfk; kfhgypGuk; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; Gfhh; nfhLj;J. Nkw;gb Gfhiu fhty;Jiw
Mathsh; mth;fs; Kiwahf 2016 tUlk; mf;Nlhgh; khjj;jpy; tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;L fle;j
10.11.2016 e; Njjpapy; mry; tof;fpd; thjp kw;Wk; thjpapd; fzth; thjpapd; fzthpd; je;ij
kPJk; kw;Wk; thjpahdth; thjpf;F 17.10.2016 e; Njjpapy; nghJ Kftuhf epakdk; nra;j
tPugj;jpud; vd;gth; kPJk;> Fw;w vz;.426/2016> nrf;\d; 465> 468> 471 kw;Wk; 420
I.gp.rp-d;gb tof;F gjpT MfpAs;sjhy;> Nkw;gb tof;fpypUe;J jg;gpf;f Ntz;bNa ,e;j mry;
tof;fpd; thjp> ,e;j mry; tof;if rKfk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;Js;shh;.

13. fpiua xg;ge;jjpy; fz;Ls;s fpiua njhif &.3>00>000/- fpiuak; Kbe;Jtpl;l epiyapy;>
Nkw;gb fpiua njhifia kjpg;gPL nra;ahky;> Fiwj;J &.20>100/- vd;W kjpg;gPL nra;J
fpiuak; nry;yj;jf;fy;y vd; 3tJ ghpfhuKk;> fpiua xg;ge;jk; nry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd ghpfhuk; Nfl;Lk;
NghJ ml;thd;]; njhif &.1>00>000/- vd; fpiua xg;ge;jj;jpy; fz;Ls;s NghJ kjpg;gPL
&.20>100/- vdTk; kjpg;gPL nra;J> 2tJ ghpfhuKk;> Kjy; ghpfhukhd nghJ mjpfhuk;
nry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd; Nfl;Fk;NghJ mjw;Fk; &.20>100/- vd kjpg;gPL nra;Jk; kw;Wk; epue;ju
epiyAWj;Jf; fl;lisghpfhuq;fis 4 kw;Wk; 5 Nfl;Fk; NghJ mjw;Fk; jyh &.20>100/- vd
kjpg;gPL nra;J mjw;Fhpa ePjpkd;w fl;lzk; nrYj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ jtwhdjhFk;. Thjp rKf
ePjpkd;wj;ij Vkhw;wpNa Kj;jpiuf; fl;lzk; nrYj;jp ,e;j tof;F jhf;fy; MfpwJ.

14. vdNt fdk; Nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fs; fpUig nra;J tof;fpd; thjpahdth; mry; tof;fpy;
NfhhpAs;s ghpfhuq;fs; mry; tof;fpd; thjpf;F VJk; fpilf;f$bajy;y vdTk;> Nkw;gb tof;f
epiyf;f $bajy;y vd jPh;khdpj;J mry; tof;if js;Sgb nra;J cj;jpuT nra;J jPh;g;G nra;aJk;>
tof;fpd; nryTj; njhif tof;fpd; gpujpthjpfSf;F> tof;fpd; thjpaplkpUe;J fpilf;Fk; gbf;Fk; cj;juT
nra;Jk; jPh;g;G nra;a Ntz;b fdk; Nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fis mry; tof;fpd; gpujpthjpfs; tzf;fkha;
gpuhj;jpf;fpd;whh;fs;.

From the pleadings this Hon’ble Court framed the following issues on 19.09.2021:
1. Whether the Power of attorney deed dated 25.10.1996 is legally valid?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare the Power of Attorney dated 25.10.1996
vide Doc.No.285/1996, S.R.O., Chengalpattu, Joint-II, executed by plaintiff’s
husband in favour of 1 st defendant as null and void?
3. Whether the agreement of sale dated 25.10.1996 is legally valid?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare the sale agreement dated 25.10.1996 vide
Doc.No.3031/1996, S.R.O., Thirukazhukundram, executed by plaintiff’s husband in
favour of 2nd defendant as null and void?
5. Whether the sale deed dated 25.10.1999 is acted upon?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of the sale deed dated 22.10.1999 as
prayed for?
7. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
8. Whether the plaintiff is having right, title and interest over the suit property?
9. Whether the plaintiff is
10. Whether the suit is barred by Limitation?
11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction with respect of
possession?
12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction with respect to
alienation, encumbrance?
13. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitling to?

On the side of the plaintiff her husband-Mr. Victor Jesudoss has been examined as Pw-1
and through him Ex.A-1 to Ex.A17 and Ex.A-21 marked during chief examination and Ex.A-
18 to Ex.A-20 marked during cross examination of Dw-1. On the side of the defendants the
1st defendant has been examined as Dw-1 and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-9 marked during cross
examination of Pw-1and Ex.B-10 to Ex.B-14 marked during chief examination of Dw-1.

It is submitted that the husband of the plaintiff has been examined as Pw-1 in this case on
behalf of the plaintiff. it is submitted that the plaintiff has not sought the permission of this
Hon’ble Court to give evidence by her husband on behalf of her under Sec.120 of Evidence
Act. It is submitted that on the facts of this case the evidence let in by the husband of the
plaintiff without the permission of this Hon’ble Court cannot be taken as evidence. The said
objection was raised by the defendant at the time of chief examination and cross examination.

During cross examination of Pw-1 on 10.10.2022 in page No.10 the defendant’s counsel
put a suggestion to the Pw1 as follows:
“எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ, எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ 120எஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ.

Therefore the evidence let in by the husband of the plaintiff is non-est and ultimately the
suit is liable to be dismissed for non testifying the allegations in the plaint by the plaintiff
herself.

It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for the following relief
 (1) To Declare the POWER OF ATTORNEY, dt.25.10.1996 vide Document No:
285/1996 of S.R.O., Chengalpattu Joint-II, executed by Plaintiff's husband in
favour of 1 Defendant as NULL AND VOID,
(2) To Declare the SALE AGREEMENT DEED, dt.25.10.1996 vide Document
No:3031/1996 of S.R.O. Thirukazhukundram, executed by Plaintiff's husband
represented by 1st Defendant in favour of 2nd Defendant as NULL AND VOID,
(3) To Declare the SALE DEED, dt.22.10.1999 vide Document No:2566/1999 of
S.R.O. Thirukazhukundram, executed by 1s™ Defendant in favour of 2nd
Defendant as NULL AND VOID,
(4) Granting PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, their men,
agent/s and servant/s from interfering with the Plaintiff's Peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property.
(5) Granting PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd Defendant, their men,
agent/s and servant/s from in any way selling or encumbering of the suit property.
(6) Awarding the Cost of the Suit
(7) Such other suitable relief and reliefs.

It is admitted fact that the above said power of attorney deed and the sale agreement were
executed by the husband of the plaintiff, who deposed as Pw1 in this case. He admitted the
execution of the said documents. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the said
documents and sought the relief to declare the said documents as null and void.
It is further submitted that nowhere in the plaint or in the evidence the plaintiff or her
husband never alleged that the above said power of attorney and sale agreement were
obtained by fraud, coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation as enumerated in Sec.15 to
Sec.18 of the Indian Contract Act. In fact during cross examination of Pw-1 he deposed as
follows:

On 26.08.2022 in Page No.1 and 2

எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. mtu; vd;d
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.
எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 25.10.1996
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ, எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 2எஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎு எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ”.

Therefore from the evidence of the Pw-1 he admitted the execution of the power of
attorney deed and sale agreement. Further more on the basis of the power of attorney and sale
agreement the 1st defendant has executed a sale deed on 22.10.1999 to and in favour of the
2nd defendant. Therefore the said two documents are non-est on the date of filing of the suit.
While so the plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the above said documents. The plaintiff has
no locus standi to challenge the said documents. It is further submitted that the husband of the
plaintiff, who is the executants of the said documents, is never challenged the validity of the
said documents till this date in any of the forum and also during his evidence in this case.
Therefore the relief sought by the plaintiff is ultra vires and the suit not maintainable on this
ground alone.

If at all the plaintiff wants to challenge the said documents she could have done so
only by challenging the right and title of her husband to execute the said documents and also
by including him as one of parties to the proceedings. But in this case the plaintiff not only
failed to implead her husband as one of party to the proceedings but also admitted the right
and title of her husband in Para.2 and 8 of the plaint. In Para. No.2 she alleged as follows:

“The property is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs husband-Mr.G.Victor

Jesudoss. The Plaintiff submits that her husband got the suit property by the way of
oral Partition between his father and his brothers”.

In Para. No.8 she alleged as follows:

“The Plaintiff further states that, the Plaintiff's husband had executed a Settlement
deed to and in favour of the Plaintiff by registered document No.3547/2016 dated
15.07.2016 in the Sub Registrar Office at Thirukazhukundram. Ever since the date of
Settlement deed the plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit
property as an absolute owner thereof”.

It is submitted that the plaintiff has also not let into the box to give evidence. On the
contrary her husband has let in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. In fact the husband of the
plaintiff himself filed an application in I.A.No.1/2019 to implead him as plaintiff in this case
but the said application has been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 11.02.2020. As against
the said Order the husband of the plaintiff has also preferred a revision before the Hon’ble
High of Madras in CRP (PD) No.2281 of 2020 but the said revision also dismissed. All these
facts will establish the collusion between the plaintiff and her husband to grab the suit
property by misusing the power of this Hon’ble Court.

It is submitted that the reason assigned by the plaintiff to declare the above said
documents as null and void is that the Sub Collector has revoked the Patta granted in favour
of her husband and in pursuance of that her husband has revoked the said power of attorney
and the sale agreement orally and get back the original title deeds from the defendant by
repaying the advance amount and also informed the defendants not to act on the basis of the
said two documents. Except the said allegations the plaintiff has not leveled any other
allegations in the plaint to declare the said documents as null and void.

It is submitted that the 3rd relief sought by the plaintiff is to declare the sale deed dated
22.10.1999 under Doc.No.2566 of 1999 in the office of the SRO, Thirukazhukundram
executed by the 1st defendant to and in favour of the 2nd defendant as null void. It is submitted
that the reason stated in the plaint to seek the said relief is that her husband has orally revoked
the power of attorney and sale agreement executed in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendant
respectively and in violation of the revocation the 1st defendant has executed a said sale deed
in favour of the 2nd defendant. Therefore the said document is not valid and becomes null and
void. Except the said allegation the plaintiff has not averred any other allegation to seek the
said relief. It is submitted that the said relief can be sought by the husband of plaintiff alone.
But he has not taken any steps to cancel the said sale deed till this date. In fact during cross
examination of the Pw-1 he deposed that he has cancel the power of attorney deed and sale
agreement and also informed the cancellation to the defendants.
During his cross examination on 10.10.2022 in Page No.8 he deposed as follows:
எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ, எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 2016எஎ எஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.

எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. 2016எஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.
But he has not filed any of the documents stated above. It is submitted that he stated in
the evidence that he returned the advance amount and get back the original documents. Only
for the purpose of the case the plaintiff alleged that her husband orally cancelled the Power of
Attorney and Sale Agreement. It is submitted that since the husband of the plaintiff requested
the 1st defendant to give the original Patta to file it in the Writ petition to challenge the
cancellation of the Patta by Sub Collector Chengalpattu, the original Patta has been given to
the husband of the plaintiff. Expect the Original Patta the 1 st defendant has not returned any
other original documents.

It is submitted that in the plaint in Para No.8 the plaintiff alleged that she got the suit
property under a registered settlement deed at 15.07.2016 bearing Document No.3574/2016
executed by her husband. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not sought any relief of
declaration in respect of the suit property. It is submitted that there is a serious dispute
regarding the title of the suit property between the plaintiff and defendant. While so the
plaintiff has to file the suit for declaration also. Failure to seek the larger relief of declaration
is fatal to the case of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not derive any title
under the said settlement deed dated 15.07.2016 as her husband have no right to execute the
settlement deed. It is submitted that the plaintiff has taken inconsistent plea regarding her
derivation of title to the suit property. In Para No.2 of the plaint the Plaintiff alleged that her
husband is an absolute owner and her husband got the suit property by way of oral partition
between his father and his brothers but they have not filed any document prove the oral
partition. Further the plaintiff has not furnished the date of partition, properties involved in
the partition, what are the properties allotted to the respective shares etc. Therefore the said
allegation is not correct and invented for the purpose of the case. It is submitted that either the
said Victor Jesudoss or his father have never whisper about the oral partition in Ex. B-1 to
Ex.B-8. In fact during cross examination of Pw-1 on 21.09.2022 in Page No.6 the said Victor
Jesudoss deposed as follows:
“22.12.2003 எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎ 3285/2003 எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ

278/4 எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.

எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 2004-எஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ 278/4-எஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ. எஎஎ

எஎ.எஎ.எஎ.எ.6 எஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ 6.1.2004 எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎ.எஎ.எஎ.எ.7எஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎ 2004-எஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎ.எஎ.எஎ.எ. 8. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ> எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
 எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ> எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ>
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ>
எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.
Therefore the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property has been derived by her
husband by way of oral partition is not correct. It is submitted that Ex.B-1 & Ex.B-6 are
executed on the same date. Ex.B-1 is the settlement deed executed by the father of Victor
Jesudoss namely Gurunathan in respect of the S.No.278/3 (Suit Property) under
Doc.No.3286/2003. Ex.B-6 is also the settlement deed executed by the father of Victor
Jesudoss namely Gurunathan but in respect of the S.No.278/4 under Doc.No.3285/2003.
Ex.B-6 is prior document in which the father of Victor Jesudoss referred the Southern
boundary as the land belonged to the Victor Jesudoss. Likewise the Northern boundary in
Ex.A-1 is referred as land belonged to Gurunathan. There is no necessity to execute two
separate settlement deed on the same day to the same person. The father of Victor Jesudoss
could have executed one settlement and could donate both the property. The reason they
wanted to grab the suit property by their fraudulent act.
 It is submitted that in Para No.8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has traced her title through the
Settlement Deed dated 15.07.2016 bearing document No.3547/2016 executed by her husband
in her favour. It is submitted that in the said settlement deed it is mentioned that her husband
has got the suit property under a registered settlement deed dated 22.12.2003 under
Doc.No.3286 of 2003 in the office of the SRO, Thirukazhukundram executed by his father.
The averment in ExA9 in Page No.2 is as follows:
fhQ;rpGuk; khtl;lk;> jpUf;fOf;Fd;wk; tl;lk;> jpUf;fOf;Fd;wk; rhh;gjptfj;ij Nru;e;j> ne.
156 khky;yGuk; fpuhkk;> thu;l; vz;. 11> khky;yGuk; efuk;> jpUf;Fsj;njUtpy; fpuhk ej;jk;
gioa ru;Nt vz;. 170/1 ghu;l;f;F fpuhk ej;jk; Gjpa ru;Nt vz;. 278/3> tp];jPuzk; 6295
rJubfs; cs;s fhypkidapid> rhykd; mtu;fspd; FkhuUk;> vdJ jfg;gdhUkhd jpU.v];. FUehjd;
mtu;fs;> fle;j 22.12.2003 md;W vd; ngaUf;F xU jhd nrl;by;nkz;L gj;jpuk; vOjpf;nfhLj;J>
me;j gj;jpuk; jpUf;fOf;Fs;wk; rhu;gjpthsu; mYtyfj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;J 1 Gj;jfk;> 3286 Mk;
vz; gj;jpukhf 2003 Mk; Mz;L gjpag;gl;l gj;jpug;gb> vdf;F fpilf;fg;ngw;W> vd; ngaupy;
gl;lh khw;wp> 952 Mk; vz; fpuhk ej;jk; gl;lh jhf;fyhfp ehd; ru;t Rje;jpukha; Mz;lDgtpj;J
tUfpwJk;> vdJ mDgtj;jpYk; Rthjpdj;jpYk; ,Ue;JtUfpwJkhd> fPo;fhZk; nrhj;J tptuj;jpy;
cs;s nrhj;ij kl;Lk;”

But the plaintiff has not filed the said settlement deed dated 22.12.2003 under
Doc.No.3286 of 2003 in the office of the SRO, Thirukazhukundram executed by her father in
law. It is submitted that during cross examination of Pw-1 the settlement deed has been filed
as Ex.B-1 by the defendant. In ExB1 the father of Victor Jesudoss traced his title as follows:
In Ex.B-1 in Page No.2
‘jpUf;fOf;Fd;wk; tl;lk;> 156- Mk; ek;gh; khky;yGuk; fpuhkk;> thu;L 11> khky;yGuk;
efupak;> jpUf;Fsj;njUtpy; fpuhk ej;jk; gioa ru;Nt vz;. 170/ 1 ghu;l;> fpuhk ej;jk; Gjpa
ru;Nt vz;. 278/3> tp];jPuzk; 6295 rJub kidia ehd; ru;t Rje;jpukha; Mz;LDgtpj;J
tUfpwJk; vd; RthjPdj;jpYk;> mDgtj;jpYk; ,Ue;jJ tUfpw nrhj;J tptuj;jpy; fz;lr; nrhj;ij ePu;
vd; Fkhud; MdgbahYk; cd;kPJ vdf;Fs;s md;gpdhYk; ghrj;jpdhYk;”
It is submitted that the husband of the plaintiff has mortgages the suit property under a
Mortgage deed dated 2.4.2001 under document No.872/2001 in favour of D.Kannan, the said
Mortgage was discharged on 19.07.2006 under document No.4094/2006 in the said document
he traced the litle of suit Properties as follows:

‘jpUf;fOf;Fd;wk; tl;lk;> 156 Mk; vz; khky;yGuk; fpuhkj;jpy; fpuhk ej;jk; gioa ru;Nt
vz;. 170/1 ghu;l;> rg;btp\d; nra;j gpwF Gjpa ru;Nt vz;. 278/3> tp];jPuzk; (0585 rJu
kPl;lu;) 6294. 6 rJub cs;s fhypkidia epu; vdf;F <Lfhl;b fldhf”

Likewise the said Victor Jesudoss has also mortgage the suit property under a registered
Mortgage deed dated 15.05.2007 bearing document No.1074/2007 to and in favour of State
bank of India and the said Mortgage was cancelled on 05.02.2021 under document
No.376/2021. In all these documents the Pw-1 (Mr. Victor Jesudoss) has stated that he
derived the title to the suit properties under a Patta issued on 28.05.1996 issued under
Natham Settlement Scheme. In all these documents the Northern Boundary has been
mentioned as Gurunathan property who is father of the Victor Jesudoss.

Therefore in one place the plaintiff states that the suit property belonged to her father-in-
law and in other place she stated that the suit property belongs to Victor Jesudoss-her
husband. During Cross examination of Pw-1 he deposed regarding the oral Partition as
follows during cross examination 26.08.2022 in Page No.2

“எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ 1994-எஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 1994-எஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ, எஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ. 1994 எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎ.எஎ.எ.9 எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ

எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.

எஎ.எஎ.எ.9 எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 22.12.2003

எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎ எஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ”.
It is submitted that during the oral argument the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that
Patta granted in favour of Victor Jesudoss has been cancelled by the sub Collector,
Chengalpattu on 10.04.1998 under proceedings No. RC.No.54709/1998/N4. Therefore the
sale deed dated 21.10.1999 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is not
valid in Law. It is submitted that as against the order of the Sub Collector, the husband of the
plaintiff-Victor Jesudoss has filed an appeal before the DRO, Kancheepuram. It is submitted
that during Natham Settlement Proceedings a separate Patta has been granted in respect of
S.No.278/2, an extent of 1280 Sq. mt. in favour of Vatsala Burnaboss; for S.No.278/4, an
extent of 470 Sq.mt. in favour of Gurunathan- the father of Pw1 and for S.No.278/3, an
extent of 585 Sq.mt. in favour of Victor Jesudoss. It is submitted that all the Patta has been
cancelled by the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu under the proceeding stated above. Therefore
all the above said 3 persons preferred a separate Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High court
in W.P.No.8658/1999, 8559/1999 and 8660/1999. The Hon’ble High Court directed the DRO
to reconsider their grievances. As such the above said 3 persons again approached the DRO,
Kancheepuram for cancellation of the order passed by Sub Collector, Chengalpattu. But again
the DRO, Kancheepuram confirmed the order passed by the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu. As
against the order passed by the DRO, Kancheepuram the above said 3 persons preferred an
appeal before the Land Commissioner, Chepauk. It is submitted that on 21.10.2010 the Land
Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu and DRO,
Kancheepuram and directed the Tahsildar to issue the Patta to the above said 3 person for
their respective properties. Now taking advantage of the Cancellation of the Patta the counsel
for the plaintiff argued that the sale deed dated 22.10.1999 executed by 1 st defendant in
favour of 2nd defendant as null and void as the said Victor Jesudoss was not an owner on the
date of execution of the sale deed. It is submitted that the cancellation of the Patta granted in
favour of Victor Jesudoss was a temporary cessation of right and title of Victor Jesudoss. As
soon as the order passed by the Land Commissioner the right and title of Victor Jesudoss
restored. Therefore as per Sec. 43 of Transfer of Property Act, the 2 nd defendant derived a
title to the suit property under a registered Sale deed dated 22.10.1999
Sec 43 of Transfer of Property Act read as follows:
“Sec 43. Transfer by unauthorized person who subsequently acquires interest in
property transferred:
“Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorize to
transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for
consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of transferee, operate on any interest
which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the
contract of transfer subsists.
 Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in god faith for
consideration without notice of the existence of the said option”.

This defendant also rely upon the following the judgment in support the above aspects
2019(2) CTC 330 (SC)
Sec.43 of Transfer of Property Act and Sec.115 of Evidence Act – Doctrine of
Feeding Grant by Estoppel
Suit land notified as ceiling surplus and acquired by Government – Sold
subsequently by original owner by erroneous representation to plaintiff – Land
later notified as ceiling free – Revenue records mutated to show plaintiffs as title
holder – Suit not contested by Legal representative of original vendors –
Contested by 1st defendant, trespasser, who had no title under Sec.53-A of T.P.
Act – Whether plaintiffs entitle to declaration of title and permanent injunction
against 1st defendant – Held, after procuring consideration for sale by
erroneously representing to plaintiff, original vendor stopped from denying
plaintiff’s title – Sec.43 applicable – If, Transferor has defective title or no right,
title or interest, at time of transfer, but subsequently transferor acquires same
and contract of transfer subsists, such transfer is valued at option of transferee –
Sec.43 based on Principles of Estoppel and equity – Intention behind Sec. 43 –
Nobody can be permitted to take benefits of his own wrong – Plaintiff entitled to
declaration of title to suit properties and relief of permanent injunction – Ratio
laid down in Ram Pyare Vs. Ram Narain, 1985 (2) SCC 162 and Jumma Masjid
Vs Kodimaniandra Deviah, AIR 1962 SC 847 reiterated – Appeal allowed.

In fact the Pw1 has executed several documents during these periods as stated above. It is
submitted that nowhere in the plaint or in the evidence the plaintiff has specifically plead the
above said plea. Therefore without the plea the plaintiff cannot take such a plea during
argument.

During cross examination on 21.09.2011in Page No.4 he deposed as follows:

“எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ 2010எஎ.

2010எஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ.

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 2010எஎ எஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ, எஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎ.எஎ.எஎ.எ.1 எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. 03.04.2001 எஎ எஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 03.04.2001 எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎ.எஎ.எஎ.எ.2 எஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ 15.05.2007 எஎஎஎஎ State Bank of India,

Chengalpattu எஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
19.07.2006 எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎ.எஎ.எஎ.எ.4. எஎஎஎஎஎ, எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 15.5.2007எஎ State Bank of India, Chengalpattu-f;F vOjpf;nfhLj;j

mlkhdg;gj;jpuj;ij vd;dplk; எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 5.2.2021 எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ.

எஎஎ எஎ.எஎ.எஎ.எ.5 எஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ”.

 It is submitted that during oral argument by the counsel for the plaintiff, he argued that
the 1st defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant far below the market
Value (under value). For the said argument he has also rely upon the judgment of our
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 (2) CTC 115 (SC). It is submitted that this aspect also
not pleaded in the plaint. Therefore without the plea the plaintiff cannot take such a plea
during argument.

In any event the fact in the above case is different from the facts in this case. In the said
case the plaintiff has executed a Power of Attorney deed in favour of 2nd defendant for
development of land into plots only but taking advantage of illiteracy of the plaintiff the 2 nd
defendant added two more clauses in the power of attorney and executed the sale deed in
favour of his father and brother.

Whereas in this case the husband of the plaintiff - Victor Jesudoss himself executed a
power of attorney in favour of 1st defendant on 25.06.1996 under Document No.285/1996 in
the office of Sub Registered office, Joint II, Chengalpattu in favour of 1 st defendant and on
the same date the said Victor Jesudoss has also executed a registered sale agreement under
document No.3031/1996 in the office SRO, Thirukazhukundram in favour of 2nd defendant.

It is submitted on the same date the said Victor Jesudass has executed two separate
registered documents in favour for two different persons and in two registration office.
Therefore the Judgment relied upon by plaintiff is not applicable to the facts of this case and
the same is not helpful to the plaintiff.

It is submitted that during oral argument by the counsel for the plaintiff he submitted that
1st defendant has executed the sale deed (Ex.A-11) in favour of 2nd defendant for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- which is below the market value (under valuation). It is submitted that the said
Victor Jesudoss has himself executed a sale agreement for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- only in
favour of 2nd defendant and also received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance from 2nd
defendant. On the same date he has also executed a power of attorney in favour of the 1st
defendant for the specific purpose of execution and presentation of sale deed. Therefore the
1st defendant has executed the sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant for the sale consideration
fixed by the said Victor Jesudoss. In this case the sale consideration has been fixed by the
principal himself and the 1st defendant has not fixed the sale consideration but he merely
executed and registered the sale deed in favour of 2 nd defendant in pursuance of the sale
agreement executed by said Victor Jesudoss in favour of the 2nd defendant. Whereas the fact
in the case law referred by the plaintiff’s counsel is totally different. Wherein the agent
himself fixed the sale consideration and executed the sale deed without the knowledge and
consent of the principal. Therefore the case law reported in 2024 (2) CTC 115(SC) referred
by the counsel for the plaintiff is not applicable to fact of this case.

Furthermore the plaintiff along with her husband and his father-in-law have created
several forgery documents (Ex-B1, B6, B7 & B8) wherein they referred the market value
only Rs.20,000/-.

It is submitted that part from the advance amount Rs.1,00,000/- received on the date of
agreement, the said Victor Jesudoss has also received a further amount of Rs.90,000/- on
19.01.1998 out of balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is submitted that neither the
plaintiff nor the husband of the plaintiff disclosed the receipt of the above said amount
anywhere in the plaint or during evidence. Even during the cross examination of Pw1 he
deposed that he has not received any amount other than the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
out of sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-.

The cross examination on 10.10.2022 in page No.7 he deposed as follows in line 3

“எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ 3>00>000/- எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ 1>00>000/- எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. 19.1.1998
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎ.எஎ.எஎ.எ.9. எஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ 90>000/- எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ 1>10>000/-எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ.
Therefore form this evidence it is proved that the said Victor Jesudoss has received entire
sale consideration from the defendants.
It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed the present suit in order to escape from the
criminal liability initiated against her, her husband, father-in-law and one Veerabadran.
It is submitted that in the plaint in Para No.9 the plaintiff averred that she came know the
sale deed dated 22.10.1999 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant when she
applied encumbrance certificate on 29.09.2016. It is submitted that this is also not correct.
The said averment is made in order to avoid the limitation. From the evidence of Pw-1 during
cross examination it will show that they suppress the knowledge of the execution sale deed in
favour of the 2nd defendant in the year 2001 itself. The evidence of the Pw1 is as follows:

On 10.10.2022 Page No.7 from line 12 onwards

“எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 22.12.2003 எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ> எஎஎஎ
எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 15.7.2016 எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ> எஎஎஎ 3.4.2001 எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ>
எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ 15.5.2007 எஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ> எஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎ
எஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ. எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ

எஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ எஎஎஎ எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ
எஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎஎ”.
But they above not file the above said encumbrance certificate. They wantonly
suppressed the said documents in order to maintain the suit within the Limitation period.

It is submitted that the defendant has lodged a police complaint as against the plaintiff,
her husband, her father in law and one Veerabadran before the Mamallapuram Police Station
under Sec 465, 468, 471, 420, 120-B. The said complaint and FIR has been marked in Ex.A-
18 EX.A-19. The said complaint is filed against the above said persons for creating the
forgery settlement deeds in favour of the Plaintiff by her husband on 15.07.2016 and other
documents.

It is submitted that the police has also filed the charge sheet as against the above said
persons. Thereafter they filed a petition before the J.M. cum D.M. of Thirukazhukundram to
discharge them from the charges but the said application has been dismissed. As against the
said dismissal order they filed a Writ before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras Challenging
the FIR filed against them and the said appeal is allowed. As against that the 1 st defendant
preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the Apex Court confirmed the
order passed by Hon’ble High Court. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court and the
Supreme Court discharged the above said persons taking consideration of the pendency of the
above suit. Therefore the present suit is filed in order to escape from the criminal liability.

It is submitted that till this dated the husband of the plaintiff has not taken any steps to
cancel either the Power of Attorney or Sale agreement and also not challenged the execution
of the sale deed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. But during cross
examination of Pw1 has deposed that he has cancelled the above said documents in the year
2016. But he has not produce any documents as stated above.

The plaintiff has not established her case and therefore the defendants pray that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit on the ground of fraud, limitation,
suppression of fact, non seeking of larger relief of declaration and non-joinder of necessary
party with exemplary costs.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS

1.2019(2) CTC 330 (SC)

Sec.43 of Transfer of Property Act and Sec.115 of Evidence Act – Doctrine of
Feeding by Estoppel
Suit land notified as ceiling surplus and acquired by Government – Sold subsequently
by original owner by erroneous representation to plaintiff – Land later notified as
ceiling free – Revenue records mutated to show plaintiffs as title holder – Suit not
contested by Legal representative of original vendors – Contested by 1st defendant,
trespasser, who had no title under Sec.53-A of T.P. Act – Whether plaintiffs entitle to
declaration of title and permanent injunction against 1 st defendant – Held, after
procuring consideration for sale by erroneously representing to plaintiff, original
vendor stopped from denying plaintiff’s title – Sec.43 applicable – If, Transferor has
defective title or no right, title or interest, at time of transfer, but subsequently
transferor acquires same and contract of transfer subsists, such transfer is valued at
option of transferee – Sec.43 based on Principles of Estoppel and equity – Intention
behind Sec. 43 – Nobody can be permitted to take benefits of his own wrong –
Plaintiff entitled to declaration of title to suit properties and relief of permanent
injunction – Ratio laid down in Ram Pyare Vs. Ram Narain, 1985 (2) SCC 162 and
 Jumma Masjid Vs Kodimaniandra Deviah, AIR 1962 SC 847 reiterated – Appeal
allowed.

2. 2007 (4) CTC 70

Sec.34 & 38 of Specific Relief Act – Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.
Permanent injunction – Practive and Procedure – Permissibility of seeking for
relief of permanent injunction alone without seeking a relief of declaration – When
plaint itself refers to serious title disputs between Plaintiff and the defendant, the
plaintiff cannot seek for a bare injunction and ought to pary for declaration of title
also – Suit, held, bad for absence of prayer for declaration of title

Counsel for the defendants

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
SUB JUDGE AT CHENGALPATTU

O. S. No. 125 OF 2016

Mrs.P.C.Sasimala ... Plaintiff

-Vs-

1.G.Gnanabarathidasan s/o Guruviah,

2. Mrs. Pandiselvi s/o Guruviah
... Defendants

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED

BY THE DEFENDANTS
Thiru.V.Vasudevan, B.Sc., B.L.,
Counsel for the defendants