IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on 28.10.2025

Pronounced on 02.02.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

CS No. 66 of 2013

1. Mr. K. P. Jayaram,

S/o late. Krishna Pillai,

2.Mrs Shobha Jayaram

Rep By Her Husband And Power Agent

Mr K.P Jayaram, [POA dt.21.11.2012-both permanent residents of

No.194, Jalan Rahman Merur, Selangore,

Malaysia-417850 And Now At Ag-13,

4th Avenue, Shanthi Colony, Anna

Nagar, Chennai-40

Plaintiffs

Vs

1. M/s. Radha Exports India Pvt

Ltd Rep By Its Managing Director

Mr M Krishnan, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

'G', 2nd Flr, 12, State Bank St. Mount

Road, Chennai -600 002.

2.Mr. M. Krishnan

S/o.Mr.Murugaian,

3.Mrs Radha Gouri

W/o Mr.Murugaian,

2 And 3 Are Residing At No.1-D 1st

Floor Gee GeeMinar, 23/15 College

Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 6

Defendants

PRAYER: The plaint is filed under Order IV, Rule 1 and Order XXIV Rule 1 of

the Original side Rules and order VII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code,

(a) declaring that the 2nd Plaintiff is the absolute owner and for

recovery of the possession of the House property bearing Door

No.33, 2nd Street, Gill Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094, more

fully described in the schedule hereunder;

b) declaring that the Sale Deed dated 06.07.2007, registered as

Document No.2558 of 2007 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,

Kodambakkam in favour of the 1 defendant, is null and void and

unenforceable in law;

(c) permanent injunction: restraining the defendants from alienating

or encumbering the Plaint Schedule property; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(d) directing the contesting defendants to pay the plaintiffs' cost of

the suit

For Plaintiffs:Mr.T.V.Vineeth Kumar

For Defendants:Mr.R.V.R.Deenadayalan

JUDGMENT

The suit has been filed seeking relief of declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is

the absolute owner of the suit property and to declare the sale deed dated

06.07.2007 executed in favour of the 1st defendant by the 2nd plaintiff is null and

void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or

encumbering the Plaint suit scheduled properties.

2.The short facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiffs are non-residential Indians. The second plaintiff is the wife of

the first plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff, with an intention to settle down in India, came

to India in the year 1999, and thereafter, with the money earned by him in the

business which is run in India, he purchased a dwelling house, which is the suit

property, through a sale deed dated 8.4.1999 executed by one Abdul Hameed s/o

Zackriah. During January 2005, the 1st plaintiff received a legal notice from LG

Household & Healthcare Ltd, Korea, stating that the contract between the 1st

plaintiff and LG Household & Healthcare Ltd, Korea, is null and void; the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

president who had signed the contract are working-level officers, and they do not

have any authority to sign the contract.

2.1. The first plaintiff has filed a case against LG Household & Healthcare

Ltd, Korea, and the same is pending. While the plaintiffs were in India, they came

into contact with the defendants 2 and 3 through the vendor of the plaint schedule

property. The 1st plaintiff became very close to the 2nd defendant and trusted him

blindly. The 2nd and 3rd defendants started to take undue advantage of the trust

and borrowed money on various occasions for purchasing a residential flat and for

investment in the 1st defendant company. The 2nd and 3rd defendants have totally

borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. A sum of Rs.50,00,000/-

has been borrowed through a cheque dated 1.11.2002 drawn on HSBC Bank,

Chennai, and a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- has been borrowed as per the details

shown under:

Sl.

No

Cheque No. Date Drawn on Amount

1005865 06.01.2003HSBC Bank 25,00,000/-

2841264 01.03.2003Punjab National Bank50,00,000/-

3011145 07.08.2003Indian Overseas Bank25,00,000/-

4829107 13.08.2003Indian Overseas Bank25,00,000/- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sl.

No

Cheque No. Date Drawn on Amount

5829112 12.09.2003Indian Overseas Bank35,00,000/-

TOTAL 1,70,00,000/-

2.2.Out of the above Rs.1,70,00,000/- the defendants 2 and 3 paid an amount

of Rs.21,00,000/- towards interest and profit share. When the plaintiffs pressed for

the money back, the 2nd and 3rd defendants evaded by giving various reasons. As

per the request made by the defendants 2 and 3, the 2nd plaintiff created a

mortgage deposit of title deeds of the 2nd plaintiff's property in favour of the

Standard Chartered Bank for a tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Though the 2nd and 3rd

defendants had borrowed the above sum, they did not repay it, and hence the

plaintiff could not get back the title deeds from the bank. The money was utilised

by the 1st defendant business, and the plaintiffs reserved their rights to initiate

separate proceedings in respect of the said amount. They are also given to

understand that the 2nd plaintiff is a shareholder in the 1st defendant's company

and the money is safe.

2.3.As the first plaintiff could not come to India, the 2nd plaintiff executed a

power of attorney deed on 12.07.2007 by appointing her father, N. Sukumaran https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Nair, as her power of attorney to deal with the suit property, and the power of

attorney was adjudicated in the office of the sub-registrar, Kodambakkam,

Chennai, on 4.7.2007. Despite the 2

nd

plaintiff took efforts to sell the suit property,

it could not be done in view of the cheating acts of the defendants 2 and 3. Even

the house belonging to the plaintiffs was also shown by the defendants 2 and 3 as

their house to their son-in-law, and on the pretext of holding the marriage of the

daughter of the defendants 2 and 3, they occupied the suit property as well.

2.4. On the pretext of making arrangements to sell the house, the 2nd and

3rd defendants were only preventing the same. When the plaintiffs came to India,

during May 2012, they found that the name board of the house was changed from

'Shabari' to 'Radha GouriIllam'. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendants 2

and 3 even looted the valuables in the house, and they have executed a fraudulent

sale deed dated 6.7.2007 in favour of the 1st defendant's company. After the

plaintiffs went to Dubai, the father of the 2nd plaintiff was staying alone in the

house. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were insisting the plaintiffs to sign an affidavit

by saying that they are the papers to be submitted to the Income Tax Department.

The plaintiffs refused to sign the papers and later came to know that their

signatures had been forged by the defendants 2 and 3. The sale amount is said to

have been paid for the sale deed dated 6.7.2007, which has also been stripped off

by the defendants 2 and 3. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2.5. On verification, the plaintiffs also came to know that the defendants

have leased the suit schedule properties to the third parties for more than

Rs.1,30,000/- per month. As of now the plaintiff does not have any permanent

place to reside in India. And hence, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for a

declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property along

with the relief of recovery of possession and also to declare the sale deed dated

06.07.2007 as null and void as against the plaintiffs along with a consequential

permanent injunction.

3.The case of the defendants is that the sale deed dated 06.07.2007 was

executed by the power agent of the 2nd plaintiff, namely her father, in a sound

state of mind for a valuable sale consideration as requested by the plaintiffs. Now

the suit claim has been made on that basis after 15 years, which is barred by

limitation. It is false to state that the plaintiff did not have the knowledge of the

sale deed. No doubt the suit itself is an afterthought; hence, the suit should be

dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been

framed:

i.Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not barred by limitation? https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

ii.Whether the sale deed dated 06.07.2007, registered as Document No.2558 of

2007 is not valid and supported by consideration as mentioned in the sale

Deed?

iii.Whether the sale Deed dated 06.07.2007, registered as Document No.2558

of 2007 before the Sub Registrar, Kodambakkam executed by the plaintiffs

through their Power Agent in favour of the Defendants has been obtained

through fraud or coercion entitling the Plaintiffs to seek a declaration that

the said Sale Deed is null and void and unenforceable in law?

iv.Whether the Plaintiff is able to substantiate the statement of accounts

showing the circuitous transactions by the defendants with respect to the

sale of the Schedule property?

v.Whether the 1

st

plaintiff's father in law N.SukumaranNair who was ailing

from acute cancer is aware of the sale Deed or is he in a physical and

mental state of mind to execute any document?

vi.To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to ?

5. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses

have been examined as PW.1 to 3 and Ex.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of

the defendants one witness was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.P32 to 38 were

marked. On the side of the Bank, three witnesses were examined as CW.1 to CW.3

and Ex.P16 to P31 were marked.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the limitation starts

from the date of knowledge. The suit has been filed within three years from the

date when the plaintiff came to know about the fraudulent act of the defendants

and hence it is not barred by limitation. Ex.P10 would show how the amounts are

deposited and withdrawn from the account of the second plaintiff. The second

plaintiff did not receive any sale consideration for the impugned sale deed Ex.P6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

and hence it is not supported by consideration. The plaintiff has proved the fraud

committed by the defendants by examining three witnesses and producing Ex.P1 to

P38. If the father of the second plaintiff Sugumara Nair was aware of the sale deed,

he would have operated the bank account also by himself. So the alleged execution

of the sale deed by Sukumaran Nair itself is doubtful as he was undergoing

Chemotherapy during the relevant point of time.

6.1. The suit property was mortgaged by the second plaintiff for the first

plaintiff's company and in the absence of the second plaintiff, the forged letter

Ex.P25, the second defendant in collusion with the Standard Charted Bank took

back the title deeds and executed the sale deed. Ex.P34 is a mail communication

between the second defendant and the plaintiff and from which it can be known

that the second defendant did not disclose about the sale deed to the plaintiffs.

Hence the plaintiffs could get the knowledge only in the year 2012 as stated in the

plaint. The sale consideration mentioned in Ex.P32-sale agreement is contradictory

to the averments made in the sale deed. A criminal case has been registered in this

regard in Cr.No.219 of 2022 against the defendants and P.W.2 Saravanan for fraud

and on the complaint given by the first plaintiff, an FIR has been registered and it

is produced as Ex.P32. After investigation, charge sheet has also been filed and the

trial is pending against P.W.2, second defendant and third defendant. The first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

plaintiff alone has played fraud and he had cheated many persons by using

distributorship of LGHHL. Ex.P6 Sale deed is a sham and nominal document.

6.2. The plaintiff has stated that the sale deed has been obtained by force

from the Power of Attorney. She had also stated that the sale deed is a fraudulent

one and the same was obtained by impersonation. Such pleas made by the plaintiff

are mutually contradictory. Without the second plaintiff's signature the defendants

managed to get the release of the title deed from the Standard Charted Bank where

the second plaintiff has deposited the title deeds as security for the loan obtained

for the first defendant's business. The second plaintiff's cheques have been used to

withdraw money from the bank by the defendants.

7. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the suit property

belongs to the second plaintiff who executed Power of Attorney in favour of his

father Sukumara Nair who has executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant

company. The second and third defendants are the Directors of the said company.

Hence the first plaintiff has got no role in the said transaction. If the second

plaintiff claims that the property has been purchased by her, the first plaintiff is an

unnecessary party. The suit for declaration based on fraud must be filed within

three years but the suit has been instituted only after 5 1/2 years and hence the suit

itself is barred by limitation. The plea that the discovery was made only in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

month of May, 2012 is false. The power of attorney of the second plaintiff who is

her father is completely aware of the transaction. The second plaintiff in her

capacity as the Director of the first defendant company had mortgaged the same

property with the Standard Charted Bank. On 23.06.2007 she wrote to the Bank

Manager seeking an NOC to sell the property to the first defendant which was duly

issued on 02.07.2007. The plaintiff themselves alleged that the dispossession

happened in the year 2010 and hence they had the full knowledge even prior to the

year 2010 and hence the suit is barred by limitation.

7.1. P.W.2’s evidence is eschewed by this Court as he did not attend for

cross-examination. The alleged Power of Attorney executed by the second plaintiff

in favour of the first plaintiff is not marked. The first plaintiff has not produced

any power of attorney issued by the second plaintiff to represent on behalf of the

first plaintiff. The plaintiff has taken contradictory pleas by pleading in the plaint

that the sale deed Ex.P6 has been obtained by forgery through impersonation.

7.2. It is also pleaded that the Power of Attorney was forced to execute the

sale deed and that it is a fraudulent one. Such pleas are mutually contradictory. The

consideration for the sale has been paid only through bank transactions, and hence

the plaintiff cannot state that the sale deed is a sham and nominal one and that it is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

not supported by consideration. Even assuming that there was any fraud by

stealing the cheques of the 2nd plaintiff, the 2nd plaintiff would have cross-

examined the witness about the alleged stolen cheques and given a police

complaint immediately, instead of waiting until the filing of the suit. The

complaint given by the plaintiffs on 21.11.2012 has been closed as false. The

plaintiff has not proved any fraud or cheating in respect of the sale deed dated

06.07.2007, marked as Ex.P6, which is true and valid and has been duly executed.

Discussion:

8. The suit property belonged to the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are

husband and wife. The 2nd plaintiff did not come to the box to be examined herself

as a witness. She has filed the suit claiming a serious relief to declare that the sale

deed dated 06.07.2007 (Ex.P6) allegedly executed by her is not valid and to

declare the same as null and void. The plaintiffs and the defendants are not

strangers and they have acquaintance with each other. Even in the plaint, it is

stated that the plaintiffs came into contact with the defendants 2 and 3 through the

vendors of the plaint schedule property, Mr. Abdul Hameed Sucriya. It is also

admitted that they became close to each other. However, it is the contention of the

plaintiffs that the defendants 2 and 3 took advantage of the friendship between

themselves and borrowed various sums of money from the plaintiffs for purchasing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

a residential flat for themselves and for making investments in the 1st defendant

company.

9. The plaintiffs are said to have paid a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/-, for which

the defendants 2 and 3 have paid Rs.21,00,000/- towards interest and profit. It is

further alleged that when the plaintiffs put pressure on the defendants 2 and 3 to

repay the balance amount, they assured that after finishing their China transaction,

they would settle the same. The plaintiffs have further stated that the defendants 2

and 3 were in need of money to clear the transaction with China and hence wanted

to raise a loan. In order to help the defendants 2 and 3 for the business transaction

involving the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs offered the suit property as security to

the Standard Chartered Bank. The 2nd plaintiff created a mortgage by depositing

the title deeds with the Standard Chartered Bank on the promise given by the

defendants 2 and 3 that they would return the documents after repaying the loan

amount within three months, but they did not pay as assured. The defendants did

not repay the loan amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to clear the mortgage, or return the

title deeds.

10. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs had created an NOC given by the

Bank and that the defendants had managed to create a sale deed in favour of the 1st

defendant company, in respect of the suit property on 06.07.2007. In the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

allegations made in the plaint, it appears that the plaintiffs have alleged that the

defendants 2 and 3 had created documents by forging the signatures of the

plaintiffs and used them for various transactions, including the registration of the

sale deed dated 06.07.2007. Ex.P6 is the registered sale deed executed by the

power agent of the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant company. Even

though the defendants have claimed that they made online payments towards the

sale consideration of the said property, the plaintiffs have alleged that they are

circuitous transactions and that the defendants 2 and 3 have played fraud upon

them.

11. The sale deed has been executed on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff through

her father, Sukumara Nair, in his capacity as Power Agent. Therefore, there cannot

be any basis for the allegation of impersonation or forgery of her signature. So far

as the impugned sale deed dated 06.07.2007 is concerned, with regard to the sale

consideration, it is shown in the sale deed Ex.P6 that the sale consideration is

Rs.1,50,00,000/-, and that the said amount has been paid to the vendor through

various bank transactions by way of issuance of cheques, which have been listed in

the contents of the sale deed itself.

12. Even though the suit property belonged to the 2nd plaintiff, the 2nd

plaintiff did not come to the box to depose evidence about the facts within her https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

personal knowledge, but her husband, the 1st plaintiff, alone appeared as a witness

on behalf of the plaintiffs and examined himself as PW.1. Ex.P2 is the General

Power of Attorney executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of her father, and the

same has been adjudicated in India on 02.07.2007. The photocopy of the Power of

Attorney document has been produced as Ex.P2. The plaintiff’s father died on

11.08.2009; however, Ex.P6, the sale deed, has been executed on 06.07.2007,

within two days after the Power of Attorney had been executed in his favour.

13. The plaintiffs have stated that the defendants 1 and 2 have become close

friends and only in view of the friendship, they had supported defendants 2 and 3

for conducting the 1st defendant company. In reality, the 2nd plaintiff has also held

a position of Director in the said company. When PW.1 was confronted on this

aspect, he stated in his evidence that she became a Director only after she had

given the suit property as collateral security for the loan availed by the 1st

defendant, Radha Exports. For the investment made by the 2nd plaintiff in the 1st

defendant company, she had also received a sum of Rs.11 lakhs as interest and

Rs.10 lakhs as profit at a certain point of time. The same was also admitted by

DW.1. If the 2nd plaintiff was merely a financier to the company and not interested

in the affairs of the company, she would have restricted herself to receive interest

for the amount invested by her. However, the records would show that she had also

received a share in the profit. From the above evidence, it can only be presumed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

that the 2nd plaintiff had offered the suit property as security for the loan availed

by the 1st defendant company only in her capacity as a Director and that she had

been receiving interest and profit for the investment made by her.

14. Even though the 1st plaintiff attempted to state that the 1st defendant

company had merely projected the 2nd plaintiff as its Director for its own benefit,

in reality, the 2nd plaintiff has been deriving profit out of the business, and hence

the allegation that the defendants 2 and 3 had projected the 2nd plaintiff as

Director of the 1st defendant company for their own benefit cannot be accepted.

PW.1 has admitted in his evidence that Ex.P6 had been presented at the Sub-

Registrar Office at Kodambakkam for registration and that the photograph of his

father-in-law, N. Sugumara Nair, had been affixed and that his identification

through his passport was also correct. In fact, Sugumara Nair, who is the father of

the 2nd plaintiff, had worked as a Sub-Registrar at Thiruvananthapuram and had

retired from service. Therefore, Sugumara Nair cannot be said to have been

cheated into executing a document without receiving any sale consideration, that

too as a Power Agent for his own daughter.

15. When the records would prove that the 2nd plaintiff had given the Power

of Attorney to her own father, Sugumara Nair, and that the sale deed Ex.P6 had

also been executed by Sugumara Nair, whose identity had been correctly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

established through his passport and photograph at the time of registration, the

burden would lie on the plaintiffs to disprove the same. The existence of the sale

deed Ex.P6 is neither denied, nor the signatures and the presence of Sugumara Nair

as Power Agent for the 2nd plaintiff be denied. As per Section 91 of the Indian

Evidence Act, when the terms of a contract relating to the disposition of property

have been reduced to writing, no evidence shall be given in proof of such terms

except the document itself. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani reported in (2003) 6

SCC 595, wherein the scope and object of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act

has been elaborately explained.

“13. Section 91 relates to evidence of terms of contract,

grants and other disposition of properties reduced to form of

document. This section merely forbids proving the contents of a

writing otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered by the

ordinary rule of law of evidence, applicable not merely to

solemn writings of the sort named but to others known

sometimes as the

"best-evidence rule". It is in reality declaring a doctrine of the

substantive law, namely, in the case of a written contract, that

all proceedings and contemporaneous oral expressions of the

thing are merged in the writing or displaced by it. (See Thayer's

Preliminary Law on Evidence, p. 397 and

p. 398; Phipson's Evidence, 7th Edn., p. 546; Wigmore's

Evidence, p. 2406.) It has been best described by Wigmore

stating that the rule is in no sense a rule of evidence but a rule of

substantive law. It does not exclude certain data because they

are for one or another reason untrustworthy or undesirable

means of evidencing some fact to be proved. It does not concern

a probative mental process - the process of believing one fact on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the faith of another.

What the rule does is to declare that certain kinds of facts are

legally ineffective in the substantive law; and this of course (like

any other ruling of substantive law) results in forbidding the fact

to be proved at all. But this prohibition of proving it is merely

that dramatic aspect of the process of applying the rule of

substantive law. When a thing is not to be proved at all the rule

of prohibition does not become a rule of evidence merely

because it comes into play when the counsel offers to "prove" it

or "give evidence" of it; otherwise, any rule of law whatever

might be reduced to a rule of evidence. It would become the

legitimate progeny of the law of evidence. For the purpose of

specific varieties of jural effects - sale, contract etc. there are

specific requirements varying according to the subject. On the

contrary there are also certain fundamental elements common to

all and capable of being generalized. Every jural act may have

the following four elements:

(a) the enaction or creation of the act;

(b) its integration or embodiment in a single memorial when

desired;

(c) its solemnization or fulfillment of the prescribed forms, if

any; and

(d) the interpretation or application of the act to the external

objects

affected by it.”

16. In the instant case, the existence of the document has been admitted by

the plaintiffs, and in fact, the suit itself has been filed on the allegation that the

defendants had played fraud in getting the sale deed Ex.P6 executed. The

incidental relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 in

connection with the business of the 1st defendant alone cannot be a reason to

defeat the contents of the registered sale deed Ex.P6. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17. As the plaintiffs have claimed that the above document is invalid, the

grounds on which the plaintiffs claim Ex.P6 to be invalid have to be proved in

accordance with Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act by adducing oral and

documentary evidence. As stated already, with the evidence of PW.1 himself, it

has been proved before the Court that the 2nd plaintiff’s power agent and her

father, Sugumara Nair, had been to the Sub-Registration Office on the alleged day

of execution of Ex.P6 and executed the same by producing documents confirming

his identity. There are nearly 27 cheques which have been deposited in the

accounts of the 2nd plaintiff, and all those payments have been listed in the sale

deed by stating that they were the sale consideration paid for the suit property.

18. The plaintiffs have stated that, despite the amounts given through

cheques being credited to the accounts of the 2nd plaintiff, they were withdrawn

within a period of 23 days by various individuals by forging the signature of the

2nd plaintiff and by stealing her cheque books. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that

Sugumara Nair had been living in the very same property even after executing the

sale deed and that the defendants had broken open the door and trespassed into the

suit property. It is alleged that only through that course the cheque books and

signed documents of the plaintiffs had been stolen by the defendants. It appears to

be an unacceptable story of the plaintiffs, especially in the context of the evidence

of the plaintiffs themselves. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the cheque books had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

been misused by the defendants 2 and 3 and that the same had been used to

withdraw money from the plaintiffs’ accounts and redeposit the amounts in the

account of the 1st defendant company. However, these facts were not substantiated

by the evidence of the plaintiffs.

19. One witness was examined as PW.2. Though he had stated facts in his

chief affidavit, he did not subject himself to cross-examination and hence his

evidence was struck off. PW.3 has stated that he had taken money from the

account of the 2nd plaintiff and deposited it into the account of the 1st defendant

company on the instruction of one Saravanan. He has also stated that he had taken

money from the joint accounts of the 2nd plaintiff and her father on various dates.

But he did not take the money at the instance of the defendants 2 and 3. Neither he

had deposited the money in the account of the 1st defendant company at the

instruction of the defendants 2 and 3.

20. The plaintiffs did not attempt to send the signatures found in Ex.P6 for

comparison with other admitted signatures of Sugumara Nair in order to show that

Sugumara Nair was not the person who was present on the alleged day of

execution of the sale deed Ex.P6. Even though the sale deed Ex.P6 had been

executed shortly after the execution of the Power of Attorney in favour of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sugumara Nair, the plaintiffs denied knowledge of Ex.P6. However, they

continued to be in touch with Sugumara Nair.

21. It is stated by the plaintiffs that Sugumara Nair had been suffering from

cancer and that the plaintiffs used to converse with him from abroad. At certain

points of time, they even came to India to be with him while he was undergoing

treatment for his ailment. Sugumara Nair died in the year 2009. Before his death,

he would have definitely informed his daughter, the 2nd plaintiff, about the

execution of the sale deed. Hence, it is unbelievable to state that the plaintiffs came

to know about the existence of Ex.P6 only in the year 2012 and hence they had

filed the suit within three years from the alleged date of knowledge of the sale

deed.

22.As the identity of Sugumara Nair cannot be denied and as he had been to

the Sub-Registrar Office on 06.07.2007 to execute Ex.P6, and thereafter continued

to be in touch with the plaintiffs on a continuous basis, it cannot be believed that

the plaintiffs were unaware of the existence of Ex.P6. As the document had been

executed in the year 2007, it was possible for the plaintiffs to know about the

transaction immediately through the 2nd plaintiff’s father, Sugumara Nair, the

Power Agent. Therefore, it is right for the defendants to contend that the suit is

barred by limitation, as it was not instituted within three years from the date of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

execution of the sale deed. The pleadings made by the plaintiffs that they came to

know about the sale deed only in the year 2011 or 2012 have not been satisfactorily

proved. As the plaintiffs did not approach the Court within three years from the

date of execution of the sale deed Ex.P6, the suit, insofar as the relief of

declaration is concerned, is barred by limitation.

23. Even though it is pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendants 2 and 3

had acted by joining with so many other persons to take money from the 2nd

plaintiff’s account by forging her signature on her cheques, no criminal action has

been initiated against the 2nd defendant or those persons on the said allegation. As

stated already, the complaint given by the plaintiffs in the year 2012 was also

closed, and the closure report was shown to PW.1. He gave evasive answers as

though it had not been informed to him.

24. Apart from the party witnesses, the Court witnesses CW.1 to CW.3 were

examined. CW.1, the Regional Head of Standard Chartered Bank, stated in his

evidence that the letter dated 23.06.2007 had been issued by the 2nd plaintiff to the

Bank. Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 are the letters given by the 2nd plaintiff to the Bank, and

through those letters, the 2nd plaintiff had given the suit property as security in her

capacity as guarantor for the loan availed by the 1st defendant. As the 2nd plaintiff https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

intended to sell the property in the year 2007, she had sent letters Ex.P24 and

Ex.P25 through the 1st defendant.

25. The allegation that Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 were created by the Bank has

been stoutly denied by CW.1. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that

Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 were created by the Bank, the plaintiffs would not have

remained quiet without giving any police complaint against the Bank. CW.1

further explained in his evidence that the 2nd plaintiff was a Director of the 1st

defendant company and that she had mortgaged the immovable property in favour

of the Bank as security for the loan availed by the 1st defendant company. Through

Ex.P25, the 2nd plaintiff requested the Bank to issue NOC to sell the property

subject to the mortgage, and thereafter the NOC was issued by following due

procedure. CW.1 has stated that whenever such letters are given, the Bank verifies

the signature by comparing it with the specimen signature already available in its

records and only thereafter proceeded to process the request and issued approval

along with the NOC.

26.So far as Ex.P24 is concerned, it was issued by the Bank in response to

Ex.P25 issued by the 2nd plaintiff. Therefore, the authenticity of Ex.P24 has not

been denied by the Bank. If the Bank authorities had also taken part in the alleged

fraud, the plaintiffs would have lodged complaints against the Bank officials also, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

but no such step was taken. CW.2, the Assistant Manager of HSBC Bank, spoke

about the cheques marked as Ex.P31. CW.2 categorically stated in his evidence

that the cheques in Ex.P31 were issued by the 2nd plaintiff and that the signatures

tallied with her admitted signatures. He further stated that it is the practice of the

Bank to verify the signature in the cheques with the specimen signature of the

account holder available in the Bank records. Therefore, the allegation that the

defendants had forged the signature of the 2nd plaintiff in her cheques also fails.

27. The Senior Manager of Canara Bank was examined as CW.3, and he

stated in his evidence that from 06.07.2007 to 26.07.2007, nine transactions

amounting to a total sum of Rs.77,57,000/- had taken place. The cheques drawn on

ING Vysya Bank were cleared through Canara Bank. Even those cheques were

accepted for collection only after comparing the signatures with the specimen

signatures. Thus, the evidence on record does not establish that the 1st defendant

had forged the signatures in the cheque books of the 2nd plaintiff. The evidence

only brings out the possibility that the 2nd plaintiff’s father, who was the Power

Agent, had knowingly sold the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant.

Therefore, the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendants 2 and 3 had stolen the

cheques of the 2nd plaintiff by breaking open the door of the suit property stands

falsified. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

28. The plaintiffs have not proved that the sale deed dated 06.07.2007,

marked as Ex.P6, is invalid or not supported by consideration. Hence it can be

concluded that the defendants are in possession of the suit property pursuant to the

sale deed Ex.P6 and not by breaking open the door. Hence, the suit is also barred

by limitation. Further, the evidence on record does not prove that fraud or

impersonation had been committed in the execution of the sale deed Ex.P6. Thus,

Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs.

29. The evidence on record does not show that the sale deed Ex.P6, dated

06.07.2007, is invalid or not supported by consideration. Hence, Issue Nos.2, 4,

and 5 are answered against the plaintiffs.

30. As the plaintiffs have not proved their case, they are not entitled to the

reliefs as prayed for. Issue No.3 is answered against the plaintiffs.

31. Considering the circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs are not entitled

to any other reliefs. Thus, Issue No.6 is answered against the plaintiffs.

32. In the result, the suit stands dismissed. No costs.

Index: Yes/No 02.02.2026

Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order

Neutral citation: Yes/No

jrs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.,

jrs

CS.No.66 of 2013

02.02.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis