2026:MHC:109AS No. 739 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

AS No. 739 of 2018

1. S.Ravi Appellant(s)

Vs

1. S.Thiyagarajan@icehouse

Thiyagarajan

2.K.M.Ismail

3.B.Anitha Kumari

4.Mahavir Surana

5.M.Rajan

6.The Manager

Bank Of India, Asset Recovery Branch,

Star House 30, Erabalu Street , 1st

Floor, Chennai - 600001 Respondent(s)

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure read with

Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 29/08/2018

in OS.NO.109/2010 on the file of the III Additional District Court , Tiruvallur at

Poonamallee and allow the Appeal.

For Appellant(s):Ms.Ganthimathi, Senior Counsel

for M/s.SA.Kanmani

For Respondent(s):No appearance for R1 to R5

Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan for R6

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

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

AS No. 739 of 2018

Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting

declaration in respect of Flat No.1 and dismissing other reliefs and also

dismissing the suit in entirety in respect of Flat No.2, the instant appeal has been

filed by the appellant.

2. Brief background of the appeal is as follows:

2.a. The plaintiff has purchased the suit properties in a public auction

conducted under SARFAESI by the HDFC Bank and he became the successful

bidder for two flats for a total amount of Rs.30 lakhs and the sale certificate is

also registered in the name of the plaintiff on 03.11.2008. The flats were vacant

at the time of inspection by the plaintiff. After registration of the sale certificate,

when the plaintiff went to the suit properties, a group of men led by the first

defendant claiming to be a political leader tried to barge into the flats. The first

defendant claimed that the flats belong to him and he threatened the plaintiff

and did not leave the flats. The plaintiff gave a complaint to the police which is

registered as CSR.No.476/2008 dated 19.11.2008. The first defendant thereafter

illegally broke open the two flats and the police officials did not take action. As

the plaintiff is employed as a marine mechanic in a private company on contract

has purchased the flats with his hard earned money, finally, the first defendant

informed that he will give back possession of one flat, i.e., F1 provided that the

plaintiff permits the first defendant to sell F2 flat. The first defendant also

promised that he will pay the plaintiff Rs.34 lakhs out of the sale proceeds when https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

sells F2 flat. The plaintiff was compelled to agree to this proposal since the

police did not take action on the report of the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave a

power of attorney dated 10.12.2008 to the first defendant permitting the first

defendant to sell F2 flat. After registration of the power of attorney for F2m the

first defendant gave possession of F1 flat to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did repair

works in F1 spending about Rs.3 lakhs.

2.b. The plaintiff came to know that the first defendant has registered a

sale agreement for Flat F2 on 10.12.2008 itself based on the strength of the

power of attorney to the second defendant. The second defendant is an

employee under the first defendant. When the plaintiff questioned the illegal act,

the first defendant did not answer properly, therefore, the plaintiff revoked the

power of attorney on 28.01.2009 and duly intimated the first defendant by way

of registered post on 29.01.2009. Though the first defendant has knowledge

about the cancellation of the power deed, the first defendant had executed a

registered sale deed with respect to Flat F2 in favour of the second defendant.

The plaintiff enquired the first defendant and informed that he will take police

action. Afraid of the police prosecution, the first defendant gave two cheques

each for Rs.17 lakhs to the plaintiff totalling to a sum of Rs.34 lakhs and

requested the plaintiff not to approach the police. The two cheques which were

given to the plaintiff was bounced as the first defendant instructed his banker to

STOP PAYMENT. The action of the first defendant amounts to land grabbing.

The sale in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant is invalid in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

the eye of law and it is null and void. No consideration was passed. The sale

deed dated 24.03.2009 in favour of the second defendant is a sham and nominal

document since the power holder/the first defendant has knowledge about the

revocation of the power deed. Therefore, it is the contention that the defendants

1 and 2 in order to enrich themselves with criminal intention to defraud the

plaintiff, the second defendant on 01.04.2009 had sold the suit property in

favour of the third defendant. That sale deed is also null and void and the same

was executed only to defeat the plaintiff's right. The third defendant on

01.04.2009 had availed the loan of Rs.15 lakhs and had executed a registered

mortgage deed in favour of the fourth defendant.

2.c. The fifth defendant is now claiming right over the suit property. He

alleges to have purchased the suit property. The fifth defendant has availed loan

from the sixth defendant. The sale in favour of the fifth defendant and

subsequent mortgage in favour of the sixth defendant is null and void and it is

not binding on the plaintiff. The sixth defendant has sanctioned loan without

properly ascertaining the title of the fifth defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for

damages for the illegal occupation and possession by the defendants. The

plaintiff estimates the damages to the tune of Rs.1500 per month from the date

of dispossession till the recovery of the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff

has given a complaint in Cr.No.55 of 2010 against the defendants 1 and 2 dated

04.02.2010 and the police have filed a final report in C.C.No.2739 of 2010 on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. The plaintiff on

11.05.2010 issued a legal notice to all the defendants. The notice was

acknowledged by the defendants 1, 2 and 6. The defendants 2 and 5 addressed

covers are returned. The sixth defendant gave a false reply. The other defendants

did not gave any reply. Hence, the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration,

recovery of possession and damages for illegal occupations and possession of

the suit property.

2.d. The 3

rd

defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff

has purchased the suit properties in auction sale without confirming the same

are vacant. The first defendant was in possession of the suit properties even

when the plaintiff had purchased in auction and in fact, the plaintiff has agreed

with the first defendant to sell the F2 flat. The power of attorney dated

10.12.2008 in favour of the first defendant is coupled with interest and

therefore, irrevocable in law. The plaintiff had for valid consideration

voluntarily executed power of attorney in favour of the 1

st

defendant wherein

the first defendant was authorised to enter into sale transaction with regard to F2

flat. As such there is no illegality in the first defendant as the power agent of the

plaintiff entering into registered sale agreement with the second defendant. The

plaintiff has purchased F1 and F2 flats for a total sale consideration of Rs.30

lakhs, thereafter, the plaintiff had found the first defendant admittedly in

possession of both the flats, laying a rival claim, which made the plaintiff https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

negotiate with the first defendant permitting the first defendant to sell F2 flat on

the consideration that the fist defendant would hand over possession of F1 flat.

The plaintiff had purchased both the flats together at Rs.30 lakhs, as such, the

first defendant would not have agreed to Rs.34 lakhs to be paid to the plaintiff

for F2 flat alone within a month, that too, when the first defendant was in

possession of both the flats. The allegations that the first defendant issued two

cheques to the plaintiff fearing the police action, in any event, the plaintiff

admittedly received consideration of Rs.34 lakhs from the first defendant, the

plaintiff has no further right in the property concerned. This defendant is a

bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of flat F2 with the corresponding

undivided share of land from the the second defendant without any notice of

the alleged right claimed by the plaintiff herein. The first defendant has

conveyed F2 flat with undivided share in the land to the second defendant under

registered sale deed dated 24.03.2009. The second defendant has subsequently

sold F2 flat to this defendant. This defendant has therefore derived title to Flat

F2 by and through registered sale deed dated 01.04.2009 and also is in

possession of the Flat F2. This defendant has mortgaged flat F2 with the 4

th

defendant under registered mortgage deed and had availed loan. The sale deed

as well as the mortgage deed dated 01.04.2009 are reflected in the encumbrance

certificate in respect of Flat F2. If really, the claim of the plaintiff is genuine and

bonafide, the plaintiff would have put this defendant on due notice immediately

after 01.04.2009. However, till date, the plaintiff had not served any notice to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

this defendant. Even the legal notice was issued only on 11.05.2010 nearly 13

months after this defendant's purchase of Flat No.2. The legal notice is also sent

to wrong address wantonly and deliberately. The plaintiff has filed the suit only

to harass the defendant to extract quick money from this defendant. As a matter

of fact, the sixth defendant had initiated SARFAESI proceedings against both

Flat F1 and F2. The plaintiff though aware of it, did not take any action to

prevent the SARFAESI proceedings, however, this defendant had approached

DRT-III, Chennai in SARFAESI Appeal No.36/2010 and obtained an interim

stay against the sixth defendant from taking any action as against Flat F2, since,

this defendant is concerned only with Flat F2. This defendant is a bonafide

purchaser for valid consideration in rightful possession of Flat F2 and the

corresponding undivided share of land without due notice to the plaintiff's

alleged claim in the suit. Hence, opposed the suit.

2.e. The 4

th

defendant filed written statement contending that since the

first defendant had established the right, ownership and possession over the suit

property, the fourth defendant had extended loan to the first defendant by way

of mortgage for the suit property. The mortage in favour of the fourth defendant

is therefore perfectly valid and is supported by consideration and the transaction

between the fourth defendant and the first defendant is genuine. The plaintiff

has no right to question the said valid transaction. The suit is a clear abuse of

process of law and deserves to be dismissed in limine. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

2.f. The sixth defendant has filed the written statement inter-alia

contending that the fifth defendant/motgagee has purchased the residential flat

along with the corresponding undivided share of land and mortgaged the said

property with the sixth defendant. Now, the sixth defendant has initiated

SARFAESI proceedings as against the said property. Hence, the title is clearly

vested with the mortgagor and now after SARFAESI auction, the plaintiff has

come up with this false and frivolous suit.

2.g. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff has obtained clear and marketable title over the suit

schedule properties consisting of F1 and F2 flats and is also absolute owner of

F1 and F2 flats as per the sale certificate dated 03.11.2018?

2. Whether the registered General Power of Attorney dated 10.12.2008 executed

by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant is an irrevovable power of

attorney?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title in respect

of suit schedule properties i.e., F1 and F2 flats as prayed for?

4.Whether the second and third defendants are bonafide purchasers of F2 flat?

5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit properties?

6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages at the rate of 1500/- p.m till the

recovery of suit properties?

7.To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

2.h. On the side of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1

and Ex.A22 were marked. On the side of the defendants, third defendant was

examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked.

2.i. On appreciation of the documentary and oral evidences, the Trial

Court decreed the suit in part and declaration was granted in respect of Flat

No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and in respect of other reliefs, the suit was

dismissed and as far as the Flat No.2 is concerned, the suit is dismissed in

entirety. Challenging the decree and judgment, the unsuccessful plaintiff has

filed the present appeal suit.

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff

has purchased the suit properties in the public auction conducted by the HDFC

Bank. Sale certificate is also registered in his name on 03.11.2008. According to

the plaintiff even before the purchase of the properties in a public auction, the

plaintiff made inspection of the flats, the flats were vacant at the relevant point

of time. After registration of sale certificate on 03.11.2008, when the plaintiff

visited the suit properties on 17.11.2008, the first defendant along with his

henchmen came to the property and made a claim over the property claiming

that they are the absolute owner. Hence, it is the contention that thereafter, there

was some arrangement agreed between the parties and the first defendant has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

agreed to give back the possession of Flat F1 provided that plaintiff permit the

first defendant to sell F2 flat. Accordingly, the plaintiff has executed the power

of attorney dated 10.12.2008 in favour of the first defendant under Ex.A3 for

sale of Flat No.2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.34 lakhs. On the same day,

the first defendant has executed a sale agreement in favour of the second

defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.17 lakhs. Though the first

defendant has given two cheques for a sum of Rs.34 lakhs as consideration for

the flat No.F2, the said cheques were dishonoured. After dishonour of the said

cheques, he has immediately revoked the power of attorney dated 28.01.2009 by

registering the revocation deed, therefore, termination of agency is also

communicated to the first defendant by registered post on 29.01.2009. Hence, it

is the contention that first defendant despite the notice of termination of agency

has sold the property to the second defendant on 24.03.2009, therefore, it is the

contention that the sale in favour of the second defendant after the termination

of power deed is not valid in the eye of law. Any subsequent sale to the third

defendant, fourth defendant and other defendants are not valid in the eye of law.

4. According to the learned senior counsel, Ex.A6/receipt issued by the

postal authorities clearly shows that the termination of power of attorney has

been sent to the first defendant and the same has been delivered on 30.01.2009,

therefore, it is the contention that once the revocation of power of attorney has

been properly intimated and termination takes place, any transactions based on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

the said power of attorney later is void ab initio and is not binding on the

plaintiff. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel that power of

attorney was registered and the cancellation is also registered, therefore, the

registration of the said cancellation deed itself amounts 'public notice' and

subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant is only on

24.03.2009, prior to that, the power of attorney was cancelled as early as on

28.01.2009 and the same would have been reflected in encumbrance certificate,

therefore, it amounts to public notice. At any event, Ex.A6 clearly shows that

notice has been received by the first defendant as early as on 30.01.2009,

therefore, subsequent transaction based on the said power of attorney is not

valid in the eye of law.

5. Further, it is the contention that the Trial Court has granted declaration

in respect of Flat No.1, however, the recovery of possession has not been

granted. Hence, the plaintiff is also entitled to recovery of possession in respect

of Flat No.1 and declaration in respect of Flat No.2, since, subsequent

transaction is not valid in the eye of law.

6. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the sixth

respondent that notice of termination has not been communicated to the second

defendant, as long as the notice of termination of agency has not been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

communicated to first defendant or the second defendant, in whose favour

agreement was already executed before the cancellation. Agency will not

terminate automatically as per Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Further, the sixth defendant is the mortgagee has already initiated SARFAESI

proceedings. The first defendant has already issued cheque for Rs.34 lakhs as

consideration towards the sale of Flat No.2. The plaintiff is also aware of the

registration of the document in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff's

right if any is only to sue for recovery of money as unpaid vendor, instead, he

cannot assail the documents particularly, when the termination of agency has

not been taken effect. Hence, opposed the appeal.

7. In the light of the above submissions, now the following points arises

for consideration:

i) Whether the notice of revocation of power of attorney dated 28.01.2009 has

been served on the agent namely the first defendant?

ii) Whether the termination came into effect by mere registration of revocation

of power deed?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of both the flats,

viz., F1 and F2.

iv) to what other, the appellant is entitled to?

Point (i) to (iv) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

8. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has purchased F1 and F2 flats in a

public auction conducted by the HDFC Bank and the sale certificate is also

registered in his name on 03.11.2008 which has been marked as Ex.A2. Sale

consideration paid by the plaintiff is Rs.30 lakhs. It is also the case of the

plaintiff that after purchase, the first defendant has created problem and laid a

rival claim over the property, therefore, the plaintiff has executed a power of

attorney under Ex.A3 dated 10.12.2008 in favour of the first defendant for sale

of F2 so that F1 will be handed over to the plaintiff. It is also the case of the

plaintiff that towards such sale, he has received two cheques, each for Rs.17

lakhs totalling, Rs.34 lakhs. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the

cheques issued by the first defendant were dishonoured for the reason that

STOP PAYMENT. Therefore, immediately, he realised that the first defendant is

cheating him and cancelled the power of attorney and registered the revocation

deed dated 28.01.2009 which is marked as Ex.A5. According to the plaintiff,

immediately he has sent a registered post on 29.01.2009 intimating the

revocation of power of attorney to the first defendant.

9. It is relevant to note that the evidence of plaintiff clearly indicate that

he was also aware of the sale agreement executed by the first defendant dated

10.12.2008 in favour of the second defendant. His evidence clearly shows that

he came to know about the sale agreement within a period of 15 days from the

date of such agreement. Thus, the plaintiff was aware that the power of attorney https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

executed by him is partly exercised by executing the agreement of sale in favour

of the second defendant. Having cancelled the power of attorney dated vide

revocation of power deed dated 28.01.2009, the plaintiff has not chosen to send

notice to the agreement holder intimating the so-called cancellation. It is

relevant to note that when agency is terminated, such termination takes effect as

to agent and as to third parties, only when the agent or third party become

known to such termination.

10. Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act reads as follows:-

208. When termination of agent's authority takes effect as to agent,

and as to third persons.- The termination of the authority of an

agent does not, so far as regards the agent, take effect before it

becomes known to him, or, so for as regards third persons, before it

becomes known to them.

11. Therefore, in order to give effect of termination, it is mandatory on the

part of the plaintiff to send notice intimating such termination. Admittedly, in

this case, the third parties right have been created by agreement to enforce the

contract. Though the agreement does not create any right or interest over the

immovable properties, but the right to enforce the contract has already been

created which is also known to the plaintiff, however for the reasons best known

to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not chosen to send any notice to the second

defendant/agreement holder. It is to be noted that though it is stated by the

plaintiff that he has sent the notice of termination to the first defendant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

immediately after revocation of power of attorney by way of registered post on

29.01.2009, the fact remains that the copy of the said termination has not been

filed by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff has filed Ex.A6/communication from

the postal authorities to show as if speed post has been delivered to the first

defendant, it is relevant to note that in the entire plaint, it is nowhere pleaded

that he has sent the communication of revocation of power of attorney by way

of speed post, whereas, it is the specific case that he has sent the communication

only by way of registered post. Ex.A6 relates to some speed post and further,

what was the nature of the communication sent to the first defendant on

29.01.2009 and delivered to the first defendant has not been established. Even

the copy of the communication said to have been sent by the plaintiff has not

seen the light of the day. The said communication is also not received by the

first defendant and in fact, it is received by one Meenakshi. How that

Meenakshi related to the first defendant is not known. Therefore, in the absence

of proof that communication sent is only with regard to the termination of deed,

it cannot be said that the speed post sent and delivered only relates to the

cancellation of power of attorney.

12. It is also further to be noted that no persons from the postal

department is examined to show what was the nature of the article delivered to

the first defendant and the communication Ex.A6 was only obtained on

17.06.2009, that too, after six months. Therefore, when the pleadings of the

plaintiff indicate that he has only sent a registered post, now, the document https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

relates to the speed post has been filed to show that the communication was sent

to the first defendant which is in our view is not related to the termination of

agency. If really, the communication was sent, at-least the plaintiff could have

filed a copy of the communication actually sent which has not been done so.

Therefore, this fact creates serious doubt about the intimation of the termination

of agency to the first defendant.

13. As already stated above, the plaintiff was already aware of the

agreement for sale executed in favour of the second defendant by the first

defendant, however, he has not even chosen to send a communication to the

second defendant also. Therefore, in the absence of the service of notice about

the termination of agency, termination will not effect as per Section 208 of the

Indian Contract Act. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Thankamma George vs. Lilly Thomas and another

reported in (2024) 8 SCC 351, has held as follows:-

28. From a plain reading, Section 208 infers and gives effect to

revocation upon the twin conditions being satisfied, (i)

communication to the agent and (ii) knowledge to a third party i.e.,

one who deals with or is likely to deal with the agent. Then, the

revocation of authority becomes known to the agent and the said

third parties. In other words, an idea in the mind of the principal to

revoke cannot be construed as implied revocation or renunciation

of agency. There ought to be an act or conduct of the principal

which implies that the agency is revoked or withdrawn. If the

revocation is expressed, such as by publication in newspapers,

public notice or advertisement, communication to the agent etc.,

the parties who deal with the agent have a reasonable opportunity

to know the revocation of agency by the principal. Two stages of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

revocation are, firstly, one dealing with the agent, and secondly,

one which applies to the third parties. For attracting the

consequence of revocation to either of the situations, the

revocation of the agent’s authority is made by the principal in a

manner that clearly implies that the principal has withdrawn the

authority to act on his or her behalf by the agent. Followed by

knowledge to third parties, let us examine the circumstances of the

case on whether implied revocation coupled with communication is

established.

14. Further, as far as the cancellation of agency is concerned, there is a

specific legal requirement under substantive law namely Indian Contract Act.

Section 206 of the Indian Contract Act reads as follows:-

“206. Notice of revocation or renunciation.—Reasonable notice

must be given of such revocation or renunciation, otherwise the

damage thereby resulting to the principal or the agent, as the case

may be, must be made good to the one by the other.”

15. The Act requires a reasonable notice to be given and such revocation

could be either expressed or implied under Section 207 of the Act. When the

revocation purports to be expressed, such express revocation is required to be

served with notice in the manner contemplated under Section 206. Unless a

notice is served, the termination will not take effect as per Section 208 of the

Indian Contract Act.

16. As far as the contention of the learned senior counsel that since the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

revocation of power of attorney itself was registered on 28.01.2009, it amounts

to ‘public notice’, therefore, according to her, same should have been reflected

in the encumbrance certificate and it amounts to notice. It is relevant to note

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the public notice of the

registration of the document. " a person is said to have notice" of a fact when he

actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or

search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known

it.

17. Explanation I of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as

follows:-

Explanation I.—Where any transaction relating to

immoveable property is required by law to be and has been

effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such

property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall

be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of

registration or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-

district, or where the registered instrument has been registered

under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Indian Registration Act,

1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any

memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any

Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property

which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or

interest is being acquired, is situated:

18. It is relevant to note that the registration of power of attorney relating

to the immovable property was made compulsorily registrable under Tamil

Nadu Act 29 of 2012 w.e.f. 01.12.2012. Prior to the said amendment brought https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

under TN Act 29 of 2012, registration of power of attorney of sale of property is

not compulsorily under Section 17 of the Registration Act; only by way of

amendment under Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 2012, registration of power of attorney

relating to the immovable properties was made compulsory. Under Section 51

of the Registration Act, all the documents registered which are of non-

testamentary documents will be entered in Book No.1. In all other documents,

though registered not required under Section 17 of the Registration Act as a

compulsory document will normally be entered in Book No.4 as per Section

51(3) of the Registration Act. Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 17, 18

and 51 of the Registration Act make it clear that power of attorney relating to

the immovable property which is made compulsory registrable will now be

entered under Book No.1 in view of the amendment by the Tamil Nadu Act 29

of 2012. Prior to that, power of attorney was normally entered in Book No.4 and

it would not have reflected in the encumbrance certificate. The copy of the

Ex.A8/sale deed dated 24.03.2009 makes itself clear that power of attorney

dated 10.12.2008 was registered under Book No.4 in the office of the SRO,

Konnur, Chennai. Such being the position, we are of the view that mere

registration of power of attorney which was not compulsorily registrable prior

to Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 2012 and the said entry normally would have been

entered in Book No.4 under Section 51(3) of the Registration Act, 1908 and

would not have been reflected in the encumbrance certificate. Hence, the

contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the same has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

been reflected in encumbrance certificate and it amount to 'notice' cannot be

countenanced for the simple reason that at the relevant point of time, power of

attorney was entered in Book No.4.

19. Though Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act amounts to 'notice'

relating to any transaction relating to the immovable property is required by law

to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, the fact remains that

power of attorney relating to immovable properties was made compulsorily

registrable only after Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2012 which came into effect from

01.12.2012. Therefore, only on that day onwards, power of attorney was made

compulsorily registrable, in such case, any transaction in registering the

documents relating to immovable property amounts to notice. Prior to that, it

cannot be said that mere registration, it amounts to notice since the same is not

reflected in Book No.1 to verify the entries.

20. As already stated above, notice of termination has not even

established and served on either the first defendant or the second defendant. As

the plaintiff has failed to prove that the termination of power deed was served

either on the first defendant or the second defendant, such termination will not

take effect as per Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act. Such view of the

matter, sale deed executed by the first defendant to the second defendant is valid

in the eye of law and that cannot be questioned. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

21. It is also the case of the plaintiff that since the first defendant has

executed sale agreement in favour of the second defendant in respect of F2, the

plaintiff informed that he would take police action, afraid of police prosecution,

the first defendant has issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.34 lakhs. Though, it

is stated that cheques have been dishonoured, it is not pleaded in the plaint

when the said cheques were dishonoured and what are the actions taken in this

regard and further, the plaint also does not indicate whether any action has been

taken to recover the unpaid sale consideration. Since, sale is a transfer of

ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-

promised. Even assuming that promise amount is not paid, the remedy of the

plaintiff is only to recover the unpaid sale consideration, the plaint is totally

absent about any action taken for recovery of money also.

22. As the very termination of the agency/revocation of power of attorney

was not been served, such termination will not take effect in the eye of law.

Such view of the matter, we are of the view that the sale executed on the

strength of the power of attorney is valid in the eye of law, therefore, the

plaintiff cannot claim any right in the property namely Flat F2. The plaintiff is

also admitted in his evidence that the third defendant was in possession of the

Flat No.F2. It is also now stated that the plaintiff is not in possession of the both

the flats. Admittedly, the third defendant was in possession of Flat No.F2, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

Trial Court having held that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration for Flat

No.F1 ought to have granted recovery of possession, however, the Trial Court

has granted only relief of declaration. Challenging the finding of the Trial Court

granting declaration in respect of Flat No.F1, no appeal whatsoever is filed by

the defendants. Such view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the appeal of

the plaintiff in part granting relief of recovery of possession in respect of Flat

No.1 in addition to the declaration already granted by the Trial Court. As far as

the Flat No.2 is concerned, the judgment of the Trial Court is confirmed.

Accordingly, these points are answered.

23. In result, this appeal suit is allowed in part in respect of the Flat No.1

granting recovery of possession in addition to the declaration granted by the

Trial Court and in respect of Flat No.F2 is concerned, the judgment and decree

of the Trial Court dismissing the suit in entirety is confirmed. Considering the

nature of relief and dispute in between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.)(R.SAKTHIVEL J.)

05-01-2026

dhk

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

To

1.The III Additional District Judge

III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

Poonamallee

2. The Section Officer

VR Section, Madras High Court

3.The Manager

Bank Of India, Asset Recovery Branch

Star House 30, Erabalu Street,

1st Floor, Chennai - 600001 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No. 739 of 2018

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

AND

R.SAKTHIVEL J.

dhk

AS No. 739 of 2018

05-01-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis