Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2347 (MAD)

Lakshmi v. P. Chandrasekaran

2014-08-04

T.RAJA

body2014
JUDGMENT T. RAJA, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Learned First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 126 of 2006 dated 27.07.2011. 2. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 7 except 8th defendant. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the sale agreement executed between the plaintiff and the 8th defendant, who is the Power of Attorney, was unenforceable as there was no consideration in the sense of benefit i.e. Section 25 and 2(d) of the Contract Act which reads an agreement made without consideration is void that had been passed on to the seller, who had given the power in favour of the 8th defendant. Therefore, the sale agreement dated 29.10.2001 executed between the plaintiff and the 8th defendant should be treated as an invalid document. 3. Originally, when one late Ramasamy had executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 22.09.2000 in favour of the 8th defendant, R. Marudachalam, to deal with the suit property, the said power of attorney was registered as document No. 236 of 2000. Although the said 8th defendant became the power holder of deceased Ramasamy by virtue of the said power of attorney. The said 8th defendant after entering into a registered agreement of sale dated 29.10.2001 with the plaintiff, agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. He had received a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- towards part of consideration of the sale agreement. But the said amount of sale consideration has not been passed on to the legal heirs of the deceased Ramasamy. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 7 cannot be held liable. This aspect has been completely overlooked by the learned First Appellate Court, while passing the decree against the defendants for payment of the entire amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12%. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be interfered with. 4. But, this Court is unable to agree with the said argument, for the reason that when it is an admitted case, that the suit property originally belongs to the deceased Ramasamy, who had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the 8th defendant, Mr. 4. But, this Court is unable to agree with the said argument, for the reason that when it is an admitted case, that the suit property originally belongs to the deceased Ramasamy, who had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the 8th defendant, Mr. R. Marudhachalam, on 22.09.2000, the said General Power of Attorney was registered carrying document No. 236 of 2000, therefore, it is an admitted case that the 8th defendant became a power holder of the deceased Ramasamy. Subsequently, the holder of power of attorney for deceased Ramasamy, Mr. R. Marudhachalam also, entered into a sale agreement to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- with the plaintiff. After receiving a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- towards part of the sale consideration, on 10.10.2002, the 8th defendant received the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- also from the plaintiff by making an endorsement on the reversal of the sale agreement itself. Therefore, when the plaintiff was able to show before the trial court, the papers of the registered general power of attorney dated 22.09.2000 that the 8th defendant had entered into a registered agreement of sale on 29.10.2001 to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-, after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- by the 8th defendant on 29.10.2001, the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was also received by the 8th defendant on 10.10.2008, the learned trial court found that the 8th defendant remained ex-parte. Agreeing with the case of the plaintiff, decreed the suit, directing the defendants 1 to 7 appellants herein, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramasamy to pay back the entire amount along with the interest at the rate of 12% to the plaintiff/respondent herein and refused to grant decree for specific performance for the reason that the deceased Ramasamy and the power of attorney holder, 8th defendant remained ex-parte before the trial Court. However, on appeal, the learned First Appellate Court also found that the 8th defendant who has received the entire amount cannot escape from the liability to repay the entire amount accordingly, making small modification of the trial Court judgment directed to repay the entire amount with interest at the rate of 12%. However, on appeal, the learned First Appellate Court also found that the 8th defendant who has received the entire amount cannot escape from the liability to repay the entire amount accordingly, making small modification of the trial Court judgment directed to repay the entire amount with interest at the rate of 12%. Therefore, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, besides, there is no substantial question of law involved as raised by the appellant. Hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the second appeal. Accordingly, for the reason that for exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 of the CPC, the existence of substantial question of law is necessary, admittedly, in the present case, the finding of facts given by the both courts below, in my opinion, do not call for interference as mentioned above. When there is no substantial question of law in this case involved, this Court is inclined to dismiss the second appeal at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.