Madras HC Rejects Bid To Dismiss Son’s Land Suit Through Father, Reads US Notary’s Date As November 2, Not February 11

The plaintiff sued for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction, acting through his father as power agent under a GPA executed in the United States.

The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, alleging that the GPA was improperly attested and notarised and that its dates showed it was fabricated.

The trial court dismissed their application.

The defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC permits rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action; the plaint’s pleaded cause of action is a matter for trial where it is prima facie disclosed.

Under Order III Rule 2 CPC, the trial court had recognised the plaintiff’s father as power agent; the order could not be collaterally questioned through the later Order VII Rule 11 application after it had attained finality.

The court held that a GPA is not a compulsorily attestable document, so Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, did not apply.

Relying on Dr. Elizabeth Rajan v. Inspector General of Registration and Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, it held that a foreign notary’s acts may receive recognition in India even absent reciprocity under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952.

The court distinguished K. Akbar Ali v. Umar Khan, which concerned a GPA used in connection with dealings in property, from a GPA used to conduct litigation.

The GPA had been filed with the plaint, and the father’s authority to represent the plaintiff had already been recognised under Order III Rule 2 CPC; the defendants had not challenged that order when made.

The court further considered the defendants’ objections to attestation and notarisation: the GPA was not compulsorily attestable, and the foreign notary’s acts were not invalid merely for want of reciprocity.

The apparent date discrepancy was explained by the United States date format, mm-dd-yyyy; the notary’s seal, showing a commission expiry date of “08.14.2021,” supported that interpretation.

The court therefore treated the notarial date as November 2, 2016, rather than February 11, 2016, and found no basis at this stage to regard the GPA as fabricated.

The plaint pleaded a cause of action, and its truth was for trial; K. Akbar Ali did not apply because the GPA was used to conduct the suit, not to sell or encumber the property.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with costs payable by the defendants to the plaintiff, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed.