DEIVANAIAMMAL, vs M.RAJENDRAN(died)

2026:MHC:3588
A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 17.06.2026
Pronounced on : 01.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
1.Deivanaiammal,
W/o.Late.A.Chandran
Vellaiampatti,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
2.Satheesh Kumar,
S/o.Late.A.Chandran,
Vellaiampatti,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.M.Rajendran (Died)
2.Dhanalakshmi,
W/o.Rajendran,
Vellaiampatti,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
3.Saranya,
D/o.Late. A.Chandran,
32, Chinnaveethi – B,
Jamin Royapettai,
Chrompet,
Chennai. ...Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants
1/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
4.Ragunath,
S/o.Late.M.Rajendran,
Vellaiampatti,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
5.Rashmi,
D/o.Late M.Rajendran,
Vellaiampatti,
Vadipatti Taluk,
th th
Madurai District. ...4 & 5 Respondents
(Respondents 4 and 5 are brought on record as LRs of the
st
deceased 1 respondent vide Court order, dated 07.04.2025
made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.266, 267 and 271 of 2025 in
A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021)
PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC r/w Section
96 of CPC, to set aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.70 of 2011 on
the file of the V Additional District Judge, Madurai dated 14.12.2020 and
allow the first appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
R1 : Died
For R2, R4 & R5 : Mr.T.C.S.Thillainayagam
For R3 : Mr.Sam Eugene Jebakumar
2/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated
14.12.2020 passed in O.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the learned V Additional
District Judge, Madurai.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the
learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai. The respondents 1 to 3 are the
defendants in that suit. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit for
declaration that the alleged sham and nominal, self-serving documents dated
09.04.2010 and 29.07.2005 in respect of the suit item Nos.1 and 2 properties
st st
respectively executed by the 1 defendant as power agent of the 1 plaintiff
nd
and the deceased Murugesan in favour of the 2 defendant are null and void
and for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit
properties and consequential permanent injunction.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank
before the trial Court.
3/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
4.The brief facts are as below:
(a) The case of the plaintiffs (appellants herein ) :-
The suit properties and other properties ancestrally belonged to the
grandfather Karuppanan. He had four sons, namely Mari, Karuppanan, Nagan
and Alagan @ Alagu. The 1st defendant is the son of Mari. The 2nd defendant
is the wife of the 1st defendant. The 1st plaintiff married Chandran, who is the
son of Alagan. The 2nd plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the children of the
1st plaintiff and Chandran. The 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are sisters.
The brother of Chandran, namely Murugesan, was a heart patient and he was
looked after by Chandran, and he permanently resided along with Chandran’s
family. Chandran died on 28.11.1992. So, the 1st plaintiff, being widow and
Murugesan being a heart patient, have jointly executed a general power deed
dated 31.07.1999 in favour of the 1st defendant. The said Murugesan executed
a Will dated 16.01.2007 bequeathing his properties in favour of the
2nd plaintiff. Thereafter, the said Murugesan died on 12.10.2008 and the Will
came into effect. The plaintiffs constructed shopping premises in the 1st item
and let them out to tenants. The defendants 1 and 2 acted against the welfare of
the plaintiffs and created a sham and nominal sale deed dated 09.04.2010 in
favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the 1st item of the suit property.
4/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
When Murugesan died on 12.10.2008, the power deed executed by Murugesan
and the 1st plaintiff automatically ceased. Hence, the said sale deed dated
09.04.2010 is not a valid one. Moreover, the plaintiffs cancelled the power
deed dated 31.07.1999, executed in favour of the 1st defendant by way of a
cancellation deed dated 25.10.2010. The same was duly informed to the
defendants 1 and 2 and other defendants by issuing a legal notice dated
14.12.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know during the last week of
April, 2011 that the 1st defendant had also created a sham and nominal sale
deed dated 29.07.2005 in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the
2nd item of the suit property. The plaintiffs got a certified copy on 02.05.2011
and on perusal of the same, found that the 1st defendant, as power agent of the
1st plaintiff and Murugesan, had executed the said deed in favour of his wife,
the 2nd defendant. The said sale is not binding on the plaintiffs, and the said
Murugesan. Therefore, the plaintiffs have laid the suit for declaration and
injunction.
(b) The case of the defendants 1 & 2 (Respondents 1 & 2 herein) :-
The averments that the suit properties and other properties originally
belonged to Karuppanan and that he had four sons and other relationships
5/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
alone are admitted. The 1st plaintiff’s husband Chandran died on 28.11.1992.
After his death, the 1st plaintiff and brother of Chandran namely, Murugesan,
jointly executed a registered power deed dated 31.07.1999 in favour of the
1st defendant in respect of suit properties with full power of alienation.
After the death of Chandran, the 1st plaintiff and her children were brought by
the 1st defendant since the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant (wife of
1st defendant) are sisters. The 1st plaintiff is a neighbour of defendants
1 and 2. Everything upon the power deed had taken place with the knowledge
of the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd item was purchased by the 2nd defendant by virtue
of a registered sale deed dated 29.07.2005 for sale consideration of Rs.19,000/-
from the 1st defendant as power agent of the 1st plaintiff and Murugesan.
Subsequently, patta was also transferred in the name of the 2nd defendant and
all revenue records were mutated in her name. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant
st
purchased the 1 item under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.2010 from the
power agent of the 1st plaintiff and the said Murugesan. She constructed five
shops and let them out to tenants. Property tax was assessed in the name of the
2nd defendant and electricity service connection was provided in her name.
The 1st plaintiffs have known all these facts. Though the power deed, dated
31.07.1999, was cancelled on 25.10.2010, the same was not intimated to the
6/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
1st defendant. However, the sale deeds dated 29.07.2005 and 09.04.2010 were
executed while the power deed was in force and the same are binding on the
principals. Since the relationship between the 1st plaintiff and the defendants
1 and 2 became stained, the 1st plaintiff let out items 3 to 10 to different
persons, so the allegation that the defendants 1 and 2 are in enjoyment of item
nos.3 to 10 is false and baseless. The reliefs sought in the plaint are not legally
maintainable. The 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of item Nos.1 and 2.
Moreover, since Murugesan died, his legal heirs are necessary parties to this
suit. So, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit is also
barred by limitation as it was not filed within the stipulated period as per the
Limitation Act.
rd
(c) The 3 defendant remained exparte before the trial Court.
5. The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both
parties.
(1)Whether the deceased Murugesan executed
a Will dated 16.01.2007 bequeathing his properties
in favour of the 2nd plaintiff?
7/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
(2)Whether the power deed executed in favour
of the 1st defendant was duly cancelled?
(3)Whether the 1st defendant as power agent
discharged his function properly?
(4)Whether items 1 and 2 belong to the 2nd
defendant absolutely by way of purchase for
valuable consideration?
(5)Whether items 3 to 10 are not in enjoyment
of defendants1 and 2?
(6)Whether the suit is not maintainable for
non-joinder of necessary parties?
(7)Whether the suit is barred by time?
(8)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a
declaration that the sale deed dated 29.07.2005 and
09.04.2010 is null and void?
(9)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
declare that they along with the 3rd defendant are
absolute owners of the suit properties?
(10)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants
1 and 2 not to interfere with their possession and
enjoyment?
(11) To what other relief if any plaintiffs are
entitled?
8/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
6. Before the trial Court, on the plaintiffs' side, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were
examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.37 were marked. On the 1st and 2nd defendants’
side, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.24 were marked.
7 .On appreciation of evidence and the arguments made by either parties,
the trial Court has concluded that the suit is barred by limitation, that the suit is
bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the Will executed by
Murugesan was not proved, the 1st defendant discharged his duties as per
power deed executed by 1st plaintiff and said Murugesan and hence, the
nd
2 defendant is absolute owner of the item Nos.1 and 2 and thereby dismissed
the suit by its judgment and decree, dated 14.12.2020.
8. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is under challenge in this
appeal.
9. Both parties have argued at length by relying on rulings of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and High Courts.
9/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
10. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has submitted that
there is no dispute that the suit properties and other properties originally
belonged to the grandfather of the husband of the 1st plaintiff, namely
Karuppanan and there is also no dispute regarding the relationship based on the
genealogical tree. The 1st plaintiff’s husband died on 28.11.1992.
The brother-in-law of the 1st plaintiff is one Murugesan, who was living
separately as his wife left him and married another person. The 1st plaintiff and
the said Murugesan have executed Ex.A.5 general power of attorney deed
dated 31.07.1999 in respect of certain properties, in favour of the 1st defendant
as he is the husband of the 1st plaintiff’s sister, the 2nd defendant herein.
The suit properties are ancestral properties. The 1st plaintiff’s children are the
2nd plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. At the time of executing the power of
attorney deed, the said children were minors and there is no whisper about the
said minor children in Ex.A.5 power deed. One of the executors of the power
deed, namely Murugesan, died on 12.10.2008. After that, the 1st defendant
executed Ex.A.8 sale deed dated 09.04.2010 in favour of his wife, the
2nd defendant herein, in respect of the 1st item of the suit property.
The husband executed the sale deed in favour of his wife. The wife certainly
10/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
could not pass any sale consideration. The defendants have not proved the
payment of sale consideration. The plaintiffs have lodged a police complaint
alleging that the 1st defendant had created the sale deeds and a criminal case
was registered. The 1st defendant obtained anticipatory bail in that case.
The same was admitted by the 1st defendant in his cross examination.
The power deed was executed without adding the minors and so the power of
attorney is not a complete one. Moreover, one of the executors, Murugesan,
died before the execution of the sale deed under Ex.A.8. Hence, the Ex.A.8
sale is not a valid one.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs further submitted that
2nd defendant is the sister of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant is the
husband of the 2nd defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 have acted against the
1st plaintiff and the welfare of her minor children as stipulated in the power of
attorney. The 1st plaintiff invested huge money in the 1st item of property for
constructing buildings. So, the 1st plaintiff cancelled the Ex.A.5 power deed
through the Ex.A.9 registered cancellation deed dated 25.10.2010 and the same
was informed to the 1st defendant by way of legal notice dated 14.12.2010.
The contention of the 1st defendant that he was not informed about the
11/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
cancellation of the power deed is a false one and the plaintiffs have clearly
pleaded in the plaint. After issuance of legal notice, dated 14.12.2010, the
plaintiffs came to know in the last week of April, 2011 that the 1st defendant
had also executed Ex.A.12 sham sale deed dated 29.07.2005 in favour of his
wife in respect of 2nd item. So, they applied for a certified copy of the same
and obtained it on 02.05.2011. The 1st defendant admitted the relationship.
The 1st plaintiff believed the 1st defendant, who is the husband of the
2nd defendant, but the 1st defendant committed a breach of trust.
He managed the suit properties according to his wishes and got electricity
service connection and revenue mutation records.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs further submitted that
the trial Court has not carefully anaylised the evidence of the plaintiffs' side.
The trial Court simply added something that the 1st plaintiff might know
regarding the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant under Ex.A.8 and
Ex.A.12 upon the assumption of knowledge by the 1st plaintiff as she is
residing near the house of the 1st defendant and dismissed the suit. The trial
Court has also found that the suit is barred by limitation and also bad for non
joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs came to know about the sale deed
12/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
for the 2nd item of the suit property during the last week of April, 2011, and
obtained a certified copy on 02.05.2011, thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the suit
on 09.05.2011, well within the limitation as per Article 134 of the Limitation
Act. From the date of knowledge, the plaintiffs filed the suit within three years,
so the suit is not barred by limitation. Further, the minors are not parties in
power deed and so the alleged sale by the 1st defendant will not bind the
minors. But the trial Court held that the minors, who became majors prior to
2011, have not challenged the said sale deed and so the suit is barred by
limitation. The finding of the trial Court is not correct one. The trial Court has
not correctly appreciated the evidence and concluded that the suit is barred by
limitation, which is not sustainable.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs further submitted that
the trial Court has also held that the suit is bad for non joinder of a necessary
party, that one Thavamani, brother of Murugesan, was not added on the ground
that the properties are ancestral properties and so the said Murugesan could not
bequeath the share to his brother Thavamani. Admittedly, the said Thavamani
filed an impleading petition and the same was dismissed by the trial Court.
Challenging the dismissal of the impleading petition, the Civil Revision
13/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
Petition and SLP were dismissed. The trial Court has not considered the said
facts. So, the said Thavamani was not impleaded as he was not a necessary
party, as already held by the trial Court. Further, after execution of the power
deed, the said Murugesan and the 1st plaintiff sold a few properties covered in
that power deed to the 1st defendant and one Mariappan through Ex.A.32 and
Ex.A.33. The 1st defendant has also admitted the same. Subsequently, the said
Murugesan executed Ex.A.7 - Will dated 16.01.2007 bequeathing the suit
properties to the 2nd plaintiff. Murugesan died in the year 2008 and his last
Will came into force. So, the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to the suit properties.
While the 1st defendant admits the execution of Ex.A.32 and Ex.A.33, he
cannot go back from his version that the Ex.A.7 -Will is invalid and it was not
executed by the said Murugesan. The Will was proved by examination of
P.W.2, who is the attestor to the Will. The trial Court has not considered the
evidence of P.W.2, merely since she is a close relative of the 1st plaintiff.
In fact, she is also a relative of the defendants 1 and 2 and she is a relative of
both parties. Only with a view to usurp the 1st defendant created sham sale
deeds in respect of the suit items 1 and 2 properties. The suit properties, item
Nos.3 to 10, belonged to the plaintiffs. The defendants have not denied the
same. But the trial Court held that the suit item Nos.3 to 10 are unpartitioned
14/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
and they also belonged to brothers Thavamani, Chandran and two brothers and
so the item Nos.3 to 10 are liable for partition. The trial Court observed hot and
cold simultaneously. The trial Court misconstrued the facts of the case while
appreciating the evidence. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs
sought in the suit. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are not
sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the appeal
may be allowed.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 has
argued that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs
and the 3rd defendant are absolute owners of the suit properties and also that
Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 are null and void. So, it is the bounden duty of the
plaintiffs to prove their title over the suit properties and relied on the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Sakharam
Mahajan /v/ Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (Dead) and Ors. case reported in
(2007) 6 SCC 737 . The plaintiffs further took a stand during the course of
evidence that there was an oral partition happened in the family and the suit
properties were allotted to them and also took a stand that the Ex.A.5 power of
attorney was executed on behalf of the minor children of the 1st plaintiff
15/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
i.e., the 2nd plaintiff and the 3rd defendant and so, the Ex.A.5 power of
attorney would not bind them and based on which the Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 sale
deeds are invalid in respect of minor children. But the plaintiffs have not
specifically pleaded the above averments in their plaint, and hence, without
pleading the evidence let in by the plaintiffs, could not be taken into
consideration by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs /v/ Kumar
Vamanrao and Ors. reported in AIR 2024 SC 1310 .
15. The learned counsel for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 has further argued
that as per genealogy, one of the executors of Ex.A.5 power deed, namely
Murugesan, was a married man and his wife is Nagalakshmi. It is stated that
the said Murugesan was a heart patient. The 1st plaintiff and the said
Murugesan executed Ex.A.5 power of attorney deed in respect of 18 items.
Out of the said 18 items, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 mentioned in Ex.A.5 have
been shown as suit properties. The other items of Ex.A.5 are not shown as suit
properties. Moreover, items 5, 6 and 10 of the suit properties are not shown in
Ex.A.5 power deed. The execution of the power deed is admitted by the
plaintiffs. According to the contents of Ex.A.5 power deed, the 1st defendant
16/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
was given fullest power to alienate. Based on which, the 1st defendant sold the
item of the suit property to the 2nd defendant through Ex.A.8 sale deed dated
09.04.2010 and also sold the 2nd item to the 2nd defendant under Ex.A.12
dated 29.07.2005. The defendants 1 and 2 constructed five shops in the
1st item of the suit property. The said Murugesan died on 12.10.2008.
The plaintiffs further stated that the said Murugesan executed Ex.A.7 - Will
dated 16.01.2007 bequeathing his properties to the 2nd plaintiff. The Will is an
unregistered one and it was attested by close relatives and also the scribe was
not examined. At the time of execution of the said Will, the said Murugesan
was a heart patient and he was not physically fit to execute such Will.
Moreover, the said Murugesan had a wife and they were not divorced and also
he had another brother, Thavamani. These facts are not shown in the said Will.
Moreover, the said Murugesan has no absolute right to bequeath the properties
through Ex.A.7 Will. The propounder of the Will and the Scribe of the Will
were not examined. It is a settled proposition that a litigant who did not enter
the witness box to substantiate his case an adverse presumption has to be
taken. Further, as per the evidence, the Will was kept by the testator,
Murugesan. The plaintiffs filed Ex.A.29 for divorce between the said
Murugesan and his wife, but the same was not incorporated in
17/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
Ex.A.7 Will. Ex.A.29 has no legal sanctity and there was no divorce granted
by a court of law to the said Murugesan and his wife Nagalakshmi @ Latha.
So, how the Will came out after his death is unclear. So, the Will is shrouded
with suspicious circumstances. The Will was not proved by the plaintiffs as
required by law. If so, the said Murugesan died intestate, and his legal heirs
would have the right over his properties. But the plaintiffs cannot claim rights
over his properties.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 has further argued
that P.W.4 clearly deposed that the signature found in Ex.A.29 is not that of
him. Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.29 were created for this suit. These are silent in the
plaint. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the 1st defendant acted against the
contents of the Will and the plaintiffs and so the 1st plaintiff cancelled the
Ex.A.5 power deed and intimated the same to the defendants by Ex.A.10 legal
notice. The plaintiffs have not specifically stated that the 1st defendant has not
given accounts in respect of the suit property and the plaintiffs have not lodged
any complaint for the alleged commission of breach by the 1st defendant.
The 1st plaintiff admitted in her evidence that the power of attorney was
voluntarily executed. There was no coercion. So, the power deed is valid.
18/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
Even during the existence of power, the 1st defendant has executed Ex.A.8 and
Ex.A.12 sale deeds dated 09.04.2010 and 29.07.2005, respectively, between
the date of the power deed, 31.07.1999 and 25.10.2010. So, the power is valid,
and Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 are also valid one and they have been legally
executed. Further, the Ex.A.10 notice was sent on 14.12.2010 after two months
from the cancellation of the power deed on 25.10.2010. The plaintiffs further
said that after execution of the power deed, the 1st plaintiff and the said
Murugesan sold their properties, so the power deed was not given with fullest
right. But, the 1st defendant signed as witness in those sale deeds and also
some different property which is not covered in Ex.A.5 power deed was sold
by the 1st plaintiff and the said Murugesan.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 has further argued
that the suit is barred by limitation in respect of Ex.A.12 sale deed dated
29.07.2005, because the plaintiffs claim that they had knowledge in April,
2011. But there is no proof for the same. The plaintiffs are neighbours and
close relatives of the defendants, and so each and every happening regarding
the suit property might have been with their knowledge. The trial Court has
also given such a finding. The plaintiff marked patta and joint patta, which
19/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
would not be sufficient for establishing title over the immovable property.
As per the joint patta, the suit properties were enjoyed by Thavamani,
Deivanaiammal and Murugesan, so the plaintiffs are not absolute owners of the
suit properties. Hence, without adding the living Thavamani brother of
Murugesan and also the wife of Murugesan, namely Nagalakshmi @ Latha, the
suit is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. The plaintiffs took inconsistent
pleas regarding suit properties, under oral partition and also under Will.
The power deed was executed on 31.07.1999. The minors, i.e., the
2nd plaintiff, became major in 2005 and the 3rd defendant became major in
1996. They have not questioned the power deed as well as Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12
sale deeds. So, the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not
established their title over the suit properties. The trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence and rightly held that the suit is barred by limitation
and also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the plaintiff has not
proved their title over the suit properties, however, it is proved that the
2nd defendant proved her title over the suit items 1 and 2 properties. Thus, the
findings of the trial Court do not warrant interference. Therefore, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
20/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
18. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the defendant
relied on the following citations:
(1) AIR 2024 SC 1310 in the case of
Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by
LRs. /v/ Kumar Vamanrao & Ors. (Civil
Appeal Nos.7293-7294 of 2010)
(2) (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 737 in
the case of Ramchandra Sakharam
Mahajan /v/ Damodar Trimbak Tanksale
(Dead) and Ors.
(3) 2009-3 Law Weekly 622 of Madras
High Court in the case of Ramulu Ammal /v/
Ramachandra Reddy & Ors.
(4) AIR 2020 SC 3717 in the case of
Vineeta Sharma /v/ Rakesh Sharma & Ors. in
Civil Appeal No..Diary No.32601 of 2018
(5) AIR 2005 Supreme Court 422 in the
case of Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji
Daga /v/ Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga.
(6) 2025 Live Law (SC) 838 in the case of
Chowdamma (D) by LR and Anr. /v/
Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Anr.
(7) (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 512
in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs. /v/
Hartar Singh Sangha.
21/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
(8) 2011 (5) CTC 287 of Madras High
Court in the case of N.Govindarajan /v/
N.Leelavathy and Ors.
(9) (2007) 5 MLJ 706 of Madras High
Court in the case of Josephine Jerome &
Ors. /v/ Santiago & Anr.
(10) (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 225
in the case of Apoline D’ Souza /v/ John D’
Souza.
(11) AIR 2017 Supreme Court 494 in the
case of Ramesh Verma (D) Thr. LRs. /v/ Lajesh
Saxena (D) by LRs. and Anr.
(12) AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2966 in
the case of T.K.Mohammed Abubucker (D)
Thr. LRs. & Ors. /v/ P.S.M.Ahamed Abdul
Khader & Ors.
(13) (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 272
in the case of Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia /v/
Shashikant N. Ruia and Ors.
(14) MANU/SC/8733/2006 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Utha
Moidu Haji /v/ Kuningarath Kunhabdulla and
Ors.
22/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
19.The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether the Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 are valid
in the eye of law?
(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs have established
their title over the suit properties?
(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?
(5) Whether the judgment and decree of the
trial Court are not sustainable in law?
(6) Whether the appeal is to be allowed?
20.Point Nos.1 and 2:-
I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and the rulings
relied on by the respondents' 2, 4 & 5 sides along with material records of the
case. As per the records and arguments, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs
and the defendants are relatives. On hearing both sides and on perusing the
material records along with the grounds of appeal, both sides admitted that the
suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Karuppanan,
st
who is the grandfather of the 1 plaintiff’s husband Chandran and that the
father's name of the said Chandran is Alagan @ Alagu. It is admitted that the
23/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
grandfather Karuppanan had four sons namely Mari, Karuppanan, Nagan and
Alagan @ Alagu. The said Alagan @ Algu has three sons Chandran,
rd
Thavamani and Murugesan. So, the plaintiffs and the 3 defendant, the said
Thavamani and Murugesan had right over the properties of their grandfather
Karuppanan through their father Alagan @ Alagu. It is the case of the
st
plaintiffs that the 1 plaintiff’s husband died in 1992 and she was helplessly
residing along with her two minor children. It is also the case that the said
Murugesan, though he is married, his wife left him and he was residing along
with his brother Chandran as he was suffering from heart disease, so the
st
1 plaintiff and the said Murugesan executed a registered power of attorney in
st
favour of the 1 defendant under Ex.A.5 dated 31.07.1999. The 1st defendant
is none other than the husband of the 1st plaintiff's sister and it is not in
st
dispute. On the basis of Ex.A.5 power deed, the 1 defendant sold the item
nd
Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties to the 2 defendant, who is none other than
st
the wife of the 1 defendant, by virtue of sale deeds Ex.A.8 dated 09.04.2010
and Ex.A.12 dated 29.07.2005.
24/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
21. Now, the plaintiffs claim that the sale was done against the benefit of
the plaintiffs and welfare of the minor children and they took a stand that the
minors are not shown as parties in Ex.A.8 power deed. The defendants 1 and
2 vehemently contended that there is no pleading regarding the minors not
being shown in power deed and so, the plaintiffs’ version during the course of
evidence could not be taken into consideration. This argument has merits.
Because, it is a settled position of law that evidence could not be let in without
pleading as rightly contended on the defendants side by relying on ruling
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai
case reported in AIR 2024 SC 1310 (supra). It is also the case of the plaintiffs
that one of the executor of power deed namely Murugesan died on 12.10.2008,
st
but the 1 defendant executed Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 sale deeds in favour of his
wife and so, the sale deeds are not valid. It is not a correct statement. It is a
settled position of law that when multiple persons execute a power of attorney,
the death of any one of them or a few of them would not automatically cancel
the power deed as long as the other executors are alive. This position has been
adopted by various High Courts frequently and also the principal seat of this
Court held such view in it judgment rendered in S.A.Nos.238 and 239 of 2023
25/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
on 28.11.2025 , which is extracted hereunder:
“ This Court, in the case titled K.A.Meeran
Mohideen vs. Sheik Amjed reported in
MANU/TN/5483/2024 has given a clear and thorough
explanation that now resolves the conundrum for people
dealing in land and joint properties like similar cases.
The general rule is that, a General Power of Attorney is
invalid after death of principal. However, when there
are multiple General Power of Attorney holders or
executors, the validity of Power of Attorney after death
of one of the principals, the question whether the
General Power of Attorney remains valid is extensively
dealt with by this Court in the above referred case. .....
The final decision of the Court is even if one of the
principals died, the power deed does not
automatically get terminated.”
22. The 1st plaintiff and her husband are the heads of the family. If so, the
1st plaintiff has the right to execute a document for the benefit of her family
and minors, and the minors cannot question it. This Court held that a
Kartha/Father Manager is having enormous powers of alienation with regard to
the Hindu Joint Family either for discharging his own debt or for the benefit of
the estate and the same is binding upon other members of Hindu Joint Family
as held in Mariammal and Anr. Vs. Subbuthai & Ors. in S.A(MD)No.255 of
26/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
2010 reported in 2013 (5) CTC 49 , this Court held in paragraph Nos.53 and 55
as follows:
"53. In Sri Narayan Bal and others .v. Sridhar
Sutar and others, 1996 (1) CTC 390 (SC):1996 (8)
SCC 54, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
"Kartha of Hindu Joint Family is having unfettered
right of alienation of Joint Family Property and the
same is binding upon other members.
55.From the conjoint reading of the decisions
referred to supra, it is made clear that a
Kartha/Father Manager is having enormous powers
of alienation with regard to Hindu Joint Family
either for discharging his own debt or for the benefit
of the estate and the same is binding upon other
members of Hindu Joint Family. Further even if a
sale is effected by a manager without legal necessity,
the same is nothing but voidable and not void."
23. From perusal of records and evidence, the Ex.A.5 power deed was
cancelled by way of Ex.A.9 cancellation. Ex.A.5 power deed is dated
31.07.1999 and the cancellation is dated 25.10.2010. The 1st defendant, as
power of attorney of the 1st plaintiff and Murugesan, sold the suit items 1 and
2 to the 2nd defendant under Ex.A.8, dated 09.04.2010 and Ex.A.12, dated
27/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
29.07.2005. These sales deeds took place prior to the cancellation of the power
deed. Moreover, the 1st plaintiff as P.W.1 has clearly deposed in her cross
examination that
“ th.rh.M.5 Mtzj;ij ve;j fhuzj;jpw;fhf
vGjpf;bfhLj;njd; vd;why; vd; fzth; rpW
tajpnuyna vd;id tpl;Ltpl;L ,we;Jtpllhh;
brhj;Jf;fis ghJfhg;gjw;fhf vGjpf;bfhLj;njd;.
gth; gj;jpuj;jpid uj;J bra;fpw tiuapy; me;j
gj;jpuj;jpw;F caph; ,Uf;Fk; tpguk; bjhpa[k; vd;why;
bjhpa[k;. th.rh.M.5 Mtzj;jpy; fpiuak;
bra;tjw;fhft[k;> xj;jp bra;tjw;fhft[k;> <L
bra;tjw;fhft[k; vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; ehd;
goj;Jg;ghh;f;fhky; ifbaGj;J nghl;L bfhLj;njd;.
ehd; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s gpuhjpy; th.rh.M.5 gth;
gj;jpuj;ij goj;Jg; ghh;f;fhky; ifbaGj;J
bra;Js;nsd; vd;W brhy;ypa[s;nsdh vd;why;
brhy;ytpy;iy....... ”.
So, they are valid in the eye of law, until any coercion or violation of the
contents of the power deed.
24. From perusal of records, the plaintiffs have not substantiated that the
1st defendant acted against the power deed and has not given the sale
st
consideration or any accounts upon demand. The 1 plaintiff as P.W.1 has
28/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
admitted in her cross examination that
“ th.rh.M.9 Mtzk; uj;J bra;tjw;F Kd;ghf
jhth 1. 2 ,yf;f brhj;Jf;fis tpw;wjw;F gzk;
jutpy;iy vd;W nfl;L nehl;O]; vJt[k;
uhn$e;jpuDf;F bfhLj;jPh;fsh vd;why;
bfhLf;ftpy;iy. ,J ehs; tiuapy; uhn$e;jpud;
vd;gth; fpiua gzk; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;W
rl;lg{h;tkhf ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mth; kPJ tHf;F
nghltpy;iy........ ”.
So, Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 are valid in the eye of law and on the basis of
nd
the same, the 2 defendant has absolute title over the suit items 1 and 2.
25. At this juncture, the plaintiffs have argued that the trial Court has
observed that the suit properties are undivided properties and so, the plaintiffs
have to seek partition, but the trial Court held that Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 are
valid and the trial Court set hot and cold upon the case of the parties. There is
no bar to alienate the undivided share of a coparcener prior to partition, and the
alienee has valid title over the share sold to him. According to the law of
equity, if any undivided share is purchased by a person prior to partition, he is
entitled to seek allotment of the same, which would be allotted to his vendor as
a coparcener. The Law of Equity is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
29/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
decision reported in 1995 (6) SCC 150 (Adivi Naidu & Ors. v. E.Duruvasulu
Naidu & Ors.), it is held in paragraph No.5 as follows:
''5.Having considered the respective
contentions, we are of the view that since the
preliminary decree was allowed to become final, the
trial Court need to give effect to it. It is settled law
that alienees of the alinees have no right to equities.
Equally, it is settled law that a coparcener has no
right to sell his undivided share in the joint family
property and any sale of undivided and specified
items does not bind the other co-parceners. Since
the specific properties were purchased prior to the
institution of the suit for partition, though the
appellants have no right to equities, it could be said
that the respective share to which their principal
alienor was entitled would be allotable to them as a
special case........''
So, the argument of the plaintiffs' side in this respect has no merit.
26. The plaintiffs' further case is that after Ex.A.5 power deed, the
1st plaintiff and the said Murugesan sold some property covered in Ex.A.5,
so the Ex.A5 power deed was not given effect. The plaintiffs produced Ex.A23
and Ex.B.23 and Ex.B.24. The 1st defendant claims that he is an attesting
30/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
witness to those sale deeds and he had knowledge of the same. The plaintiffs
have not denied the facts. So, the argument in this respect is not acceptable.
27. The Ex.A.5 power deed was executed on 31.07.1999. Based on
which, Ex.A.12 sale deed was executed on 29.07.2005. The plaintiffs claim
that they got knowledge only in April, 2011. A perusal of the judgment of the
trial Court, it is clear that the plaintiffs, being neighbours of the defendants
1 and 2, have sufficient knowledge about the activities of the defendants.
The 1st plaintiff admitted in her evidence that she is residing opposite the
house of the defendants 1 and 2. Moreover, the 2nd plaintiff became major
even in the year 2005 as per the plaint cause title. The 3rd defendant is a major,
and she is sailing with the plaintiffs. The 2nd plaintiff and the 3rd defendant
have not challenged either the Ex.A.5 power deed, dated 31.07.1999 or
Ex.A.12 sale deed dated 29.07.2005 within 3 years after attaining majority.
Moreover, the plaintiffs have not established that they have knowledge only on
receipt of the SRO copy of Ex.A.12 in April, 2011. So, as rightly decided by
the trial Court, the suit is barred by limitation.
31/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
28. From the above facts and circumstances, the Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 sale
deeds, which were executed by the 1st defendant on the basis of Ex.A.5 power
deed, are valid ones and the suit is barred by limitation. The points are
answered against the appellants/plaintiffs.
29. Point Nos.3 and 4:-
The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute
owners of the suit properties. If so, at first the plaintiffs must prove their title
over the suit properties as rightly argued by relying on the ruling of the
Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan case reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 737 and in the case of Mohammed Abubucker reported in AIR 2009
Supreme Court 2966. There is no dispute that the suit properties are ancestral
properties of their grandfather Karuppanan, who had four sons. The plaintiffs
and the 3rd defendant are legal heirs of one of the grandsons of Karuppanan.
The 1st plaintiff’s husband also has two brothers. When the facts being so, the
plaintiffs ought to have pleaded how the suit properties were entitled to them
and in what way. The plaintiffs have not pleaded any partition.
Only during the course of evidence the 1st plaintiff state that there was an oral
partition. But, the oral partition was not established by the plaintiffs.
32/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
30. Another stand taken by the plaintiffs is that the Murugesan
bequeathed the suit properties to the 2nd plaintiff by way of Ex.A.7 Will dated
16.01.2007. There are no material documents to show that the said Murugesan
was the absolute owner of the properties mentioned in Ex.A.7 Will.
Moreover, Ex.A.7 Will is an unregistered one. So, the initial burden is on the
plaintiffs to prove the Will. In this case, the witnesses to the Will are close
relatives of both parties, i.e., a co-brother of the husband of the 1st plaintiff.
When Ex.A.5 power executed in favour of the 1st defendant was in force, why
was he left to sign as a witness in Ex.A.7 Will and there is no acceptable
explanation offered by the plaintiffs in this regard, because the plaintiffs stated
that the 1st defendant committed breach of trust after execution of Ex.A.8 sale
deed of the year 2010. The Will was executed in 2007. As rightly argued by
the defendants side the propounder of the Will and Scribe of the Will were not
examined. The propounder of the Will is the 2nd plaintiff. He has not entered
into the witness box to substantiate his case. It is a settled position that when a
party to the case does not enter into the witness box to depose in support of his
case and was subject himself to cross examination by the other side, an adverse
presumption has to be drawn as per decisions relied on by the
respondents/defendants 2, 4 and 5. Moreover, the said Murugesan married one
33/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
Nagalakshmi @ Latha. The plaintiffs have stated that she was divorced by way
of customary divorce. But there is no evidence to substantiate the same.
It is pertinent to note here that the mother of the said Nagalakashmi @ Latha
has deposed on the plaintiffs' side as P.W.4, who deposed that her daughter
Nagalakashmi @ Latha was not divorced from Murugesan. It is also evident
that there is no divorce granted to them by the Court of law. These facts are not
disclosed in the Ex.A.7 Will. Muchless, these facts are not averred in the plaint
also. So, the plaintiffs have not come to court with clean hands. As per the
version of the plaintiffs, Murugesan was a heart patient and he was admitted as
an inpatient in the hospital. P.W.1 in her cross examination admitted that
“ rhl;rp jhkhfnt. 2008k; tUlj;jpy; ,wg;gjw;F
1 thuk; Kd;ghf kUj;Jtkidapy; ,Ue;jjhf
bjhptpj;jhh;. mtUf;F ,Uja nehah my;yJ fhr
nehah vd;why; ,Uja neha; mtuhy; rhpahf K:r;R
”
tpl KoahJ vd;why; rhpjhd;.......
So, Ex.A.7 - Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and these are
not cleared by the plaintiffs. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that
the Ex.A.7 Will is not proved.
31. In this case, the defendants fairly stated that the suit items 3 to 10 are
not in their enjoyment. As already stated, the suit items 5, 6 and 10 are not
34/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
shown in Ex.A.7 Will, which relates to 18 items. When Ex.A.7 Will is not
proved, the Murugesan is deemed to have died intestate. In this case, the suit
properties, items 3 to 10 and other properties, originally belonged to
grandfather Karuppanan and there is no partition among his branches. Though
the plaintiffs state oral partition, the same was not proved by them. Moreover,
as per patta and chitta marked in this case as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, Ex.A.18, Ex.A.
19 and Ex.B.3, Ex.B.8 would show joint pattadhars along with the 1st plaintiff.
So, the suit properties are not shown as exclusive properties of the plaintiffs.
That being so, the brother of Murugesan, namely Thavamani and the wife of
Murugesan, namely Nagalakshmi @ Latha, are necessary parties. The trial
Court has correctly observed and held that the Will was not proved and the suit
is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the same are upheld. So, these
points are answered against the appellants/plaintiffs.
32. Point Nos.5 and 6:-
From the above discussion, the trial Court has correctly appreciated the
evidence adduced on both sides and after considering the arguments and
citations relied on by both sides, the trial Court correctly held that the
appellants/plaintiffs have not proved their case and they are not entitled to the
35/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
relief of declaration of title and declaration of Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.12 sale deeds
as null and void. For all these reasons, the judgment and decree of the trial
Court are sustainable in law and the same need not be interfered with by way
of this appeal. So, these points are answered accordingly. Thus, the appeal
fails.
33. In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. The judgment and decree
dated 14.12.2020 passed in O.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the
learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai are confirmed. No costs.
01.09.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
VSD
To
1.The V Additional District Judge,
Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
36/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )

A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
A.S(MD)No.88 of 2021
01.09.2026
37/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 04:13:55 pm )