Sale-Agreement Buyer Caught Between POA Agent And Property Owner May Seek Specific Performance, Madras HC Says

In brief

The question

1. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action or that the suit was barred by law.

The court held

The revision petition was disposed of with liberty to the plaintiff to seek specific performance before the trial court.

It also directed

The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit on its merits and in accordance with law, and to dispose of it within six months of receiving the order. No costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a cancellation deed dated 11 July 2018 was void, a declaration that a sale deed dated 2 July 2018 was liable to be registered, and a direction to the Sub-Registrar to register it.

p. 3

According to the plaint, the plaintiff agreed to buy the suit property for ₹10.75 lakh from the petitioner’s power-of-attorney agent, paid ₹5.75 lakh, and presented a sale deed for registration. The Sub-Registrar required the principal’s life certificate; the petitioner thereafter cancelled the power of attorney.

pp. 4–5

The petitioner, claiming ownership, applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. The trial court dismissed that application, finding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law; the petitioner challenged that order under Article 227.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action or that the suit was barred by law.

p. 4

ii.2. Whether the plaintiff’s pleaded reliefs were sufficient, or whether the plaintiff should be permitted to seek specific performance following cancellation of the power of attorney.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The petitioner invoked Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which provides for rejection of a plaint on specified grounds, including where it does not disclose a cause of action or appears from the plaint to be barred by law.

p. 4

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, the provision invoked for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

p. 2

The Court cited no precedent or further statutory rule; its reasoning was that, after cancellation of the power of attorney, the substantive relief could be obtained only through a claim for specific performance.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Court considered the plaint and accompanying documents, including the alleged agreement, part-payment, presentation of the sale deed, and subsequent cancellation of the power of attorney.

pp. 4–5

It concluded that the plaintiff’s substantive claim could not be resolved merely through the existing requests concerning cancellation and registration: if the plaintiff established the case, the petitioner would have to execute the sale deed.

p. 5

Rather than finally determine the Order VII Rule 11 grounds, the Court disposed of the revision while allowing the plaintiff to seek specific performance and directing that the suit proceed on its merits.

p. 6