The plaint presented by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs seeking the relief of declaration of sale deeds executed by the 3rd defendant/their power agent as null and void was rejected without taking the plaint on file, for the reason that it was presented beyond the limitation period prescribed under law. In the fair order, the Court has also observed that the relief of declaration of a document as null and void, to which the power agent is a party, is not sustainable. The plaintiffs ought to have prayed for cancellation of the sale deeds and ought to have paid court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
2.Aggrieved by the refusal to take the plaint on file and rejection of plaint, this revision petition is filed alleging that the rejection of plaint even without numbering amounts to miscarriage of justice. By deciding the issue of limitation without trial, the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction. The averment in the plaint that the plaintiffs came to know about the sham documents only 10 months prior to filing of the suit has been overlooked. Only in the trial, the plaintiffs can demonstrate and prove why the execution of the impugned documents has to be ignored. So, it is sufficient to seek the relief to declare the sale deeds executed by the power agent of the plaintiffs in favour of third parties as null and void.
3.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned sale deeds were executed by the power agent of the plaintiffs while the power of attorney deed was in force. The act of the agent is the act of the principal. The revision petitioners cannot claim documents executed by their duly authorised agent as nullity. Further, the sale deeds which are now alleged to be sham document were executed on 28.03.2002. Whereas, the plaint seeking declaration of the said sale deeds as null and void was presented on 17.12.2008 beyond 3 years period prescribed as limitation under
Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the order rejecting the plaint without numbering is just and proper well within the law and procedure.
4.The points for determination in this case are whether the pleadings, relief and the court fees paid synchronise? whether the Trial Court can reject the plaint without taking it on file? and whether the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation without trial is permissible in law?
5.As per the pleadings, the plaintiffs were tenants under Sri Sooravali Subbaiyar Trust in respect of the suit property. Pursuant to the scheme decree passed in O.S.No.13/1932 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai, they purchased the property from the Trust under sale deed dated 03.03.2000. They executed a power of attorney deed on 03.04.2000 appointing one A.K.Annadurai as their power agent. The said Annadurai is arrayed as 3rd defendant in the plaint. Based on the power of attorney deed, the power agent has entered into certain transactions in respect of the suit property with one Jabamalai, but kept his principals in complete dark without disclosing those transactions. He has also executed two sale deeds on 28.03.2002 in favour of his daughters, which are now sought to be declared as null and void since they were created by the agent dishonestly and fraudulently. The cause of action to file the suit as framed in the plaint is as below:-
''The cause of action to file the above suit arose on 03.03.2000 when the 1st plaintiff purchased property by registered sale deed an extent of 1 Acre 21 cents which includes the suit properties. 03.04.2000 when the 1st plaintiff appointed the 3rd defendant created the sale deeds in respect of the suit property in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and on 07.11.2006 when the defendants 1 and 2 created sale deed in favour of the 5th defendant and the same were executed at Madurai and the property is situated within Madurai Corporation area which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.''
6.The relief sought for in the suit is as below:-
''The plaintiffs therefore pray:
(i)That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Sale Deed dated 28.03.2002 in favour of the 1st defendant and executed by the 3rd defendant in respect of the suit 1st schedule property and registered as Document No.840 of 2002 with the Sub-Registrar, Tallakulam, Madurai and the subsequent sale deeds as null and void and consequently pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men agents and servants from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit property described in the schedule to this plaint.
(ii)That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Sale Deed dated 28.03.2002 in favour of the 2nd defendant and executed by the 3rd defendant in respect of the suit 1st schedule property and registered as Document No.841 of 2002 with the Sub-Registrar, Tallakulam, Madurai, Madurai and the subsequent sale deeds as null and void and consequently pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents and servants from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit property described in the schedule to this plaint.
(iii)That the defendants may be directed to pay the costs of this suit.
(iv)That such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case can be granted.''
7.The suit property is valued at Rs.5,00,100/- and court fee paid is Rs.37,575/- under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Admittedly, the sale deeds under challenge were executed by the power agent when the power of attorney deed executed by the plaintiffs/revision petitioners was in force.
8.
Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act reads as follows:- ''Enforcement and consequences of agent?s contracts.?Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person.
Illustrations
(a) A buys goods from B, knowing that he is an agent for their sale, but not knowing who is the principal. B?s principal is the person entitled to claim from A the price of the goods, and A cannot, in a suit by the principal, set- off against that claim a debt due to himself from B.
(b) A, being B?s agent, with authority to receive money on his behalf, receives from C a sum of money due to B. C is discharged of his obligation to pay the sum in question to B. (b) A, being B?s agent, with authority to receive money on his behalf, receives from C a sum of money due to B. C is discharged of his obligation to pay the sum in question to B."
9.The Agent on the basis of the power of attorney deed has alienated the property on behalf of the principals to third parties. Therefore, prima facie, the sale deeds are valid in the eye of law and binds the principals on whose behalf the power agent has entered into the sale transaction. Seeking the relief to declare the documents as null and void amounts to cancelling the duly executed sale deeds.
10.In Chellakannu vs. Kolanji reported in 2005 (5) CTC 190, Her Lordship Justice R.Banumathi(as she then was) has held as follows:-
''11. .......when the Party himself seeks to get rid of the Sale Deeds in substance it amounts to Cancellation of Decree. The Plaintiff might seek to avoid the Sale Deeds if he is not a party to the Sale Deeds. But, since the Plaintiff himself is a party to the Sale Deeds before he is suing for any relief, the Plaintiff must first obtain the cancellation of the Sale Deeds.
12.The word "Cancellation" implies that the persons suing should be a party to the document. Strangers are not bound by the documents and are not obliged to sue for cancellation. When the party to the document is suing, challenging the document, he must first obtain cancellation before getting any further relief. Whether cancellation is prayed for or not or even it is impliedly sought for in substance, the Suit is one for cancellation. in the present case, when the Plaintiff attacks the Sale Deeds as having been obtained from him under fraud and mis-representation the Plaintiff cannot seek for any further relief without setting aside the Sale Deeds.''
11.The above view of Hon'ble Mrs.Justice R.Banumathi is reiterated in the subsequent judgment of Ms.Justice R.Mala in M.Abdul Muthalip vs. M.Samsudeen reported in (2009) 7 MLJ 899, wherein it has been held as follows:-
''21.As already discussed, the respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed is not valid even though this Court come to the conclusion that in moffussil pleadings are to be construed liberally but the suit to be properly valued and court fees to be paid accordingly. Since Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 has been executed on the basis of Ex.B4 Power of attorney and execution of the power of attorney deed is admitted by the respondent/plaintiff so Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are valid in law, if the respondent consider that it is a voidable one, he ought to have set aside the same or cancel the same by valuing the suit under seciton 40 of the "Act". But here he valued the suit only under
Section 25(a) of the "Act", which is not sustainable under law.
22.As already discussed, since the respondent herein has executed Ex.B4 power deed,While the same is in existence, an agent can execute a sale deed under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are in favour of the appellant himself as per the reported decision in AIR 1967 SC 181 that even an agent can purchase the property and as per the decision in 1938 Calcutta 573, principal cannot repudiate it merely because it is for agents benefit. Hence the respondent is estopped from contending that the sale deeds executed were unsustainable.''
12.In this case also, the plaintiffs are parties to the sale deeds since sale deeds were executed by their power agent when the power of attorney deed was in force. If the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the conduct of their agent and wanted to undo the act of their agent, they have to necessarily seek the relief of cancellation of the sale deeds.
13.Since the pleadings, relief sought and court fee paid do not synchronise, the court below has returned the plaint. Under the said facts, this Court finds no error in rejecting the plaint without taking it on file.
14.Insofar as rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation, the impugned order requires interference.
15.In the pleadings, there is no particulars regarding the date of knowledge of the sale deeds sought to be declared as null and void. Except a negative plea that he is settled in Srilanka and not aware of the transaction even when he came to India on 31.01.2005 to depose in the suit filed by one Aynees in O.S.No.422/2003 claiming herself as a cultivating tenant, the power agent did not whisper about the transactions he has made. Thereby, it is asserted that the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the transaction of their agent at least up to 31.01.2005. The suit which appears to have been presented on 17.12.2008 is barred by limitation, if 31.01.2005 is reckoned as the date of knowledge, but that is not the pleadings of the plaint.
16.The Apex Court in C.Natarajan vs. Ashim Bai and another reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 1278(SC), has held that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation without framing an issue on limitation and without recording evidence is contrary to law. It is relevant to extract paragraph 7 of the said judgment:-
''An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant.''
17.In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation without framing issue and recording evidence is not sustainable. Hence, the order of the Trial Court requires interference and modification.
18.Accordingly, pointing out the error in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation summarily without trial, it is suffice to set aside the order of dismissal and direct the revision petitioner to re-present the plaint with proper valuation and court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act on or before 31.07.2017. The Trial Court shall take the plaint on file if it is otherwise in order. It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to resist the suit on all fronts including the point of limitation.
This Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed with the above said direction. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Principal District Court, Madurai..