Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 8830 of 2012

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Judges Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Order Date: 17.08.2023

Facts of the Case:

• This appeal questions the validity of the judgment dated 21.11.2008 by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Second Appeal No. 648 of 2002). The High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the First Appellate Court’s decision and reinstating the Trial Court’s order.
• The dispute revolves around 110 cents of land in Palani, Tamil Nadu, which was originally owned by Natchimuthu. He gifted 50 cents to his first wife, Ramathal. A joint suit was filed by Natchimuthu and Ramathal. Rajamani and his sons, residing nearby, were asked by the plaintiffs to develop the land and were offered five cents in return. A Power of Attorney was executed in 1986, but Rajamani added clauses giving him authority to sell and transfer the property taking undue advantage of the plaintiffs’ illiteracy.
• Upon registration of the Power of Attorney, Rajamani executed two undervalued sale deeds for 50 cents each to his father and brother. The plaintiffs later discovered this and initiated legal proceedings. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding the Power of Attorney genuine. The First Appellate Court, however, held that the contents were fraudulently added by Rajamani to deprive the plaintiffs of their rights, thus decreeing the suit.
• The High Court allowed the appeal on the grounds that the plea of non est factum was not properly pleaded or framed as an issue in the lower courts. Subsequently, the High Court set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment, reinstated the Trial Court’s order, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. This present appeal challenges the High Court’s decision.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Observed and Held as Follows:

• The court found it relevant to refer to the issues framed by the Trial Court, which are as follows:
  1. Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property?
  2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
  3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for?
  4. To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled?
• The court highlighted that the first two issues inherently encompass the concept of “non est factum” since the plaintiffs claim to be absolute owners, thus denying the validity of the Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds executed by defendant No.2.
• The court further clarified that the non-framing of issues on this matter cannot be fatal, especially considering that the plaintiff No.1’s testimony aligned with the plaint’s contentions. The First Appellate Court considered both pleadings and evidence to conclude that the Power of Attorney’s contents did not match the plaintiff’s understanding.
• The court discussed the conduct of the defendant No.2, who swiftly transferred the land to his family members on the same day the Power of Attorney was registered. The transfer occurred at an undervalued rate compared to the market value, raising suspicions about the defendant’s intentions.
• The court noted the absence of possession being transferred to the defendant No.2 by the Power of Attorney and mentioned the contradictory claims regarding the consideration of Rs.12,000 paid to the plaintiffs. As the consideration was paid in cash, its validity depends on the oral statements of the parties. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ statements as more credible due to the defendant’s conduct. The lack of documented evidence supporting the receipt of consideration further strengthened the plaintiffs’ position.
• The court addressed the defendant’s reliance on case law asserting that a registered document is presumed correct in execution and contents. However, the court emphasized that since the First Appellate Court, after evaluating evidence, found the plea of “non est factum” proven, its factual findings should not have been overturned by the High Court.
• The court asserted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by interfering with factual findings and misinterpreting the pleadings. The dismissal of the suit based on the non-framing of an issue was incorrect when the broader issue adequately covered the matter with sufficient pleading and evidence.
• The court allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of the High Court, and upholding the First Appellate Court’s judgment. The suit was decreed as to no order regarding costs and disposed of pending applications.