Chinathai vs Ponnin Selvan

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 16-10-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011758862023}
AND
CMP NO. 27141 OF 2023
1. Chinathai
Madura Morthiur Village,
Mandalavadi Post,
Thirupattur, Vellore.
2. Soorya
Madura Moorthiur Village,
Mandalavadi Post,
Thirupattur, Vellore.
...Petitioners/
Petitioners/
Defendants
Vs
Ponnin Selvan
Represented by Siva Lingam,
General Power Agent,
No.16A/21 Nethaji Nagar,
Villivakkam, Chennai.
...Respondent/
Respondent/
Plaintiff
Prayer in CRP No. 4533 of 2023:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950, praying to set aside the order dated June 27, 2023 passed in
IA.No.1 of 2022 in OS.No. 175 of 2017 by the Principal District Munsif Court
at Tirupattur.
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Daniel
For Respondent(s): Ms.U.Meharunisha for Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the Order dated June 27, 2023 passed
in I.A. No.1 of 2022 filed by the revision petitioners under Order VII Rule 11
(a) read with Section 151 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['C.P.C.' for
short], in O.S. No.175 of 2017 on the file of 'the Principal District Munsif
Court, Tirupattur' ['Trial Court' for short].
2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the Original Suit
and the respondent herein is the plaintiff therein. For the sake of convenience,
hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3. The plaintiff - Ponnin Selvan filed the Original Suit through his power
agent - Sivalingam who is none other than his father. The reliefs sought for are
declaration of title in respect of the portion of suit properties delineated by the
points A, B, C, D and E in the rough sketch, delivery of vacant possession of the
same and permanent injunction against the defendants not to encroach upon the
suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's power agent / plaintiff's
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
father inherited the suit properties from his paternal side[‘ gpJuhh;$pjkha;g;
]. Vide two registered Gift Settlement Deeds even dated April 12,
ghj;jpag;gl;L ’
2012, the plaintiff's father gifted the same in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff is
residing abroad and hence he filed the Suit through his father as power agent
vide 'General Power of Attorney Deed' ['G.P.A.' for short], date of which is in
question. As per the jurat portion of the G.P.A., its date is September 13, 2016.
The G.P.A. has been notarised on November 2, 2016.
4. According to the defendants, G.P.A. is invalid for two reasons; one, it
is not attested by two witnesses as per law and two, while it is allegedly
executed in County of Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina, USA on
September 13, 2016, the notary signature dates to February 11, 2016 and as
such it affirms falsehood. Stating so, the defendants claimed that the Original
Suit is not maintainable and accordingly, filed the Order VII Rule 11 (a)
Application in I.A. No.1 of 2022 praying to reject the plaint.
5. The Trial Court upon hearing either side, dismissed the Interlocutory
Application stating that the defendants did not make out a case under Order VII
Rule 11 of C.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have come up with this
Civil Revision Petition.
6. Mr.D.Daniel, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners / defendants
appeared through video conferencing mode. Ms.U.Mehurnisha, learned Counsel
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
for Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed, learned Counsel on record for the respondent /
plaintiff, was present before the Court in physical mode.
7. Mr.D.Daniel would submit that the alleged G.P.A. is dated as
September 13, 2016 in its jurat portion. But it notary signature found in it, dates
to February 11, 2016, that is to say, prior to its alleged execution on September
13, 2016. This fact itself shows that the G.P.A. is a false and fabricated
document. The Suit filed by the plaintiff's father as power agent of the plaintiff
under the alleged G.P.A. is not maintainable under law and the cause of action
pleaded in the plaint is false. Further, he would submit that the G.P.A. is not
witnessed by two competent witnesses as per Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Further, he would submit that the G.P.A. is not notarised as
per Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. Upon making these submissions, he
would contend that the plaint is liable to be rejected as filed without any cause
of action. The Trial Court erred in dismissing the Order VII Rule 11
Application. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Civil Revision Petition,
set aside the Order passed by the Trial Court in in I.A. No.1 of 2022 and
consequently, allow the same. He would rely on the Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K.Akbar Ali -vs- Umar Khan reported in (2021) 14 SCC 51
in support of his submissions.
8. Ms.U.Mehurnisha would submit that the plaintiff - Ponnin Selvan is
residing in the North Carolina State of the USA. The G.P.A. was drafted in
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
India on September 13, 2016 and sent to the plaintiff residing in the USA who
executed it before Jefferson N. Casey, a recognised notary of the County of
Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina, USA. The date format followed in the
USA is mm-dd-yyyy and when read accordingly, it is clear that the G.P.A. was
executed and notarised on November 2, 2016 (02.11.2016) and not on February
11, 2016 (11.02.2016) as claimed by the defendants. Further, G.P.A. is not a
compulsorily attestable document and hence, Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable. Further, Section 14 of the Notaries Act,
1952 would not act as a bar, especially when given that the G.P.A. was executed
by son in favour of his father to file and contest a case. Stating that the
defendants did not make out any case under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the
learned Counsel would submit that the Trial Court rightly dismissed the
Interlocutory Application. Accordingly, she would pray to dismiss the Civil
Revision Petition.
9. Heard on either side. Perused the materials available on record.
10.Firstly, copy of the aforesaid G.P.A. based on which the plaintiff's
father as power agent of the plaintiff filed the Original Suit, was filed along
with the plaint. An application under Order III Rule 2 of C.P.C. was filed and
the plaintiff's father was recognised as his power agent for filing and contesting
the Original Suit, vide Order dated, November 27, 2017 passed by the Trial
Court in I.A. No. 1219 of 2017. If at all the defendants are aggrieved with the
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
Order passed therein, they ought to have prayed to reopen / reconsider the same
or filed a revision over the same. Since the defendants failed to do so, the Order
passed under the Order III Rule 2 of C.P.C. in I.A.No.1219 of 2017 reached
finality and the same cannot be now questioned under Order VII Rule 11 of
C.P.C.
11. Secondly, the defendants are third parties in so far as the aforesaid
G.P.A. is concerned. They are not competent persons and have no locus standi
to question the execution of the G.P.A. Further, G.P.A. is not a compulsorily
attestable document and hence, Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 do not come into picture.
12. No adjudication is necessary for a G.P.A executed before, and
authenticated by a Notary in abroad for the purpose of conducting a case in the
capacity as a power agent under the G.P.A. Adjudication is necessary only for
the purpose of Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is worthwhile to note
that the aforesaid G.P.A. was duly adjudicated as per Section 33 of the
Registration Act, 1908 before the Sub-Registrar, Konnur, Adjudication No.76
of 2026 on November 30, 2016.
13. Fourthly, as regards the question as to whether the acts of a foreign
notary can be given legal recognition in India even in the absence of reciprocity
under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, a Division Bench of this Court in
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
Dr.Elizabeth Rajan -vs- The Inspector General of Registration , reported in
2022 SCC OnLine Mad 9444 referring to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jugraj Singh -vs- Jaswant Singh , reported in (1970) 2 SCC 386 , has
held that even in the absence of reciprocity between India and another country
within the meaning of Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, the acts of notary in
that foreign country can be given legal recognition by Indian Courts. The
Division Bench went on to hold that Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 is not
a mandatory provision and does not confine Section 85 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. In view of the Dr.Elizabeth Rajan's Case , the contention of the
learned Counsel for the revision petitioners / defendants that the aforesaid
G.P.A. is not notarised as per Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 deserves to
be rejected.
14. Fifthly, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the
respondent / plaintiff, the date format followed in the USA is mm-dd-yyyy as
opposed to dd-mm-yyyy followed in India. Further, there exist intrinsic
evidence in the aforesaid G.P.A., to show that the date format followed by the
foreign notary is mm-dd-yyyy. The seal of the foreign notary shows that his
commission expires on "08.14.2021". The said fact has also noted by him in
each and every page of the aforesaid G.P.A. There exists only 12 months in
Gregorian Calendar. The very fact that "14" appears in the second position in
"08.14.2021" shows that the date format adopted by the foreign notary is mm-
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
dd-yyyy and not dd-mm-yyyy. Hence, the date of execution and attestation
written by the foreign notary in the aforesaid G.P.A. must also be read
accordingly. Perusal of the aforesaid G.P.A. would reveal that, it contains three
pages. On all the three pages, a jural portion containing the date and place of
execution along with the signature of the plaintiff and the signature & seal of
the notary has been affixed. The date found therein is November 2, 2016 when
read as per the mm-dd-yyyy format. In the last / third page, there is yet another
jural portion which provides September 13, 2016 as the date of execution. The
learned Counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submitted that the aforesaid
G.P.A. was drafted in India on September 13, 2016 and conventionally, the
same date was added in the jural portion. Thereafter, it was sent to the plaintiff
residing in the USA, who executed it before the notary on November 2, 2016
and duly authendicated by Notaries by affixing signature and seal on each
pages. The reason assigned on the plaintiff's side is natural and convincing. This
Court has no hesitation to take the date viz., November 2, 2016 mentioned by
the notary as the date of execution of the aforesaid G.P.A. This does not give
raise any suspicion as contended by the defendants much less gives an
impression that the aforesaid G.P.A. is false and fabricated.
15. As regards K.Akbar Ali's Case relied on by the learned Counsel for
the revision petitioners / defendants, it is reported in (2021) 14 SCC 51 . In that
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court can look into a G.P.A.
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
when the Suit is based on the same; that when the G.P.A. is executed for the
limited scope of administration of the suit property, the same cannot be the basis
to sell or enter into a pre-emption agreement in respect of the suit property; and
that false cause of action created by clever and illusional pleadings cannot be
permitted. In the present case, there is no question of sale, alienation or
encumbrance in respect of the suit property based on the aforesaid G.P.A.; the
aforesaid G.P.A. was presented only to enable the plaintiff's father to file and
conduct case as power agent of the plaintiff against the defendants. As stated
supra , if really the defendants are aggrieved by the same, they ought to have
challenged the Order passed under Order III Rule 2 of C.P.C. in revision or
sought the Trial Court to re-open or re-consider its Order. Further, the plaintiff
has pleaded cause of action in Paragraph No.9 of the plaint and whether the
same is true or not is a matter for trial. The plaint prima facie discloses cause of
action for the Suit and there appears to be no clever pleadings to create an
illusional cause of action. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that K.
Akbar Ali's Case is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
16. From the above narrative, it can be seen that the defendants have not
made out a case under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The Trial Court was right in
dismissing the Order VII Rule 11 Application in I.A. No.1 of 2022. There is no
irregularity or illegality with the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
17. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits with costs payable by the revision petitioners / defendants to the
respondent / plaintiff. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
JRS
To
Principal District Munsif Judge Court at Tirupattur.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )

2026:MHC:4306
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
R.SAKTHIVEL J.
JRS
CRP No. 4533 of 2023
AND
CMP NO. 27141 OF 2023
26-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:26:01 pm )