Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53631 (MAD)

N. Harimoorthy v. KVK Satheesh

2026-04-27

P Dhanabal

body2026
JUDGMENT : P. Dhanabal, J. 1.This Civil Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for the reliefs (a) to cancel the sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 fraudulently executed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff in favour of the 3rd and 4th Defendants and registered before the 5th Defendant as Document No.1186 of 2017 in respect of the Plaint Schedule A property; (b) to direct the 3rd and 4th Defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the Plaint schedule A property to the Plaintiff; (c) to cancel the General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Defendant and registered before the 5th Defendant as Document No.3663/2016 in respect of the Plaint schedule A property; d) to declare the Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016 entered between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant in respect of the Plaint Schedule ‘A’ property as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff; and e) to direct the 1 st defendant to pay compensation to the Plaintiff for demolishing the existing residential building in the Plaint Schedule ‘A’ property worth of Rs.25,00,000/- on the false pretext of constructing new apartment as per the Joint Venture dated 06.10.2016; or alternatively (i) Specific performance of the Sale Agreement dated 06.10.2016 and to direct the 1 st defendant and the 2 nd defendant to execute and register the Sale Deed in respect of Plaint Schedule ‘B’ property in favour of the Plaintiff or his nominee, failing which, to direct its Register to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the Plaint Schedule ‘B’ property in favour of the Plaintiff or his nominee within a time stipulated by this Court; (ii) to direct the 1 st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.77,00,000/- to the Plaintiff towards the balance Sale Consideration of the Schedule ‘A’ property along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the Plaint till date of realization; and (iii) to declare that the registered Mortgage Deed executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 6 th defendant under the registered Mortgage Deed dated 25.05.2016 registered as Doc.No.1897 of 2016 before the Sub Registrar Office, Sembium in respect of the Schedule B mentioned Suit property as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the alternative prayers (i) and (iii) were deleted as per the order dated 07.02.2025 in pursuance to the memo dated 07.02.2025. 2. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:- The Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the ‘A’ schedule property and the same was purchased through a Sale Deed dated 28.12.1991 and he had constructed a residential house admeasuring to an extent of 700 sq. ft. and resided there for more than 25 years and was in absolute and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the Plaintiff has intended to construct and develop the ‘A’ schedule property into residential apartments and the 1 st defendant represented that he has expertise and wherewithal to develop the ‘A’ schedule property on his own fund in a Joint Venture basis. Considering the age of the Plaintiff, he also accepted for the said Joint Venture and they mutually fixed a sum of Rs.1,65,00,000/- as a total value of the Schedule A property and entered into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016. In respect of payment of Rs.1,65,00,000/-, the 1 st defendant represented to the Plaintiff that he is doing another project on behalf of the 2 nd defendant for construction of flats in the adjacent locality, which is described as ‘B’ Schedule property and promised to allot a 570 sq. ft. of undivided share of land and flat admeasuring to an extent of 1248 sq. ft. for a value of Rs.80,00,000/-. To that extent, the 1 st defendant also obtained a Power of Attorney Deed from the Plaintiff and obtained an Agreement for construction on 06.10.2016. The remaining balance of Rs.85 lakhs was promised to be paid by the 1 st defendant as per the terms of the agreement such as Rs.10 lakhs has to be paid a the time of commencement of construction in the Schedule ‘A’ property, a part payment has to be made by the 1 st defendant to the Plaintiff upon the first booking of the Flat in the construction project in the schedule ‘A’ property and the remaining amount has to be paid after the deduction of amount already paid, within 9 months from the date of commencement of construction in the ‘A’ Schedule property, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the construction shall be completed within 9 months and the payment of the agreed sum shall be paid within 9 months. 2.1. Therefore, the construction shall be completed within 9 months and the payment of the agreed sum shall be paid within 9 months. 2.1. With an intention to facilitate the object of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016, on the same day, i.e., on 06.10.2016, a registered General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the 1 st defendant. The said Power Deed was executed to sell the property after developing an Apartment Complex. The Plaintiff had vacated the ‘A’ schedule property and handed over the vacant possession to the 1 st defendant for developing and thereafter, the 1 st defendant demolished the said building and the 1 st defendant had not commenced the construction even after passage of six months of time. When the same was questioned by the Plaintiff, the 1 st defendant represented that the plan sanctioned from the CMDA and other Statutory clearances, was not received. Thereafter, the 1 st defendant issued three cheques to the Plaintiff in piece meal manner for a total sum of Rs.8 lakhs viz., Cheque dated 27.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, cheque dated 22.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and a cheque dated 05.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Thereafter, no any payment was made by the 1 st defendant to the Plaintiff. Further, the 1 st defendant was unable to construct the apartment in the Schedule ‘A’ property and thereafter, in the month of November 2018, the 1 st defendant handed over the possession of unfinished Flat S1 situated at Plot No.C-355, 2 nd Floor, 2 nd Street, Periyar Nagar, Peravallur, Chennai i.e., ‘B’ Schedule property to the Plaintiff without executing any conveyance for transferring ownership as against the terms of the agreement. The Plaintiff had expended Rs.5 lakhs to complete the unfinished work in the ‘B’ Schedule property. 2.2. The Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property. The 1 st defendant failed to execute Sale Deed in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property and failed to pay remaining amount of Rs.77 lakhs towards total consideration of ‘A’ Schedule property as mutually agreed by them. 2.2. The Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property. The 1 st defendant failed to execute Sale Deed in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property and failed to pay remaining amount of Rs.77 lakhs towards total consideration of ‘A’ Schedule property as mutually agreed by them. Thereafter, the Plaintiff came to know that based on the General Power of Attorney executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant on 06.10.2016 for the development of the property, the 1 st defendant mortgaged the ‘A’ Schedule property in favour of the M/s. Pinanacle Finance for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs by misusing the said Power of Attorney, had also created a sham and nominal Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 in favour of the 3 and 4 defendants. Therefore, all the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 have committed fraud on the Plaintiff, misused the Power Deed given for development of the ‘A’ Schedule property, fraudulently mortgaged the same and thereafter, sold the property to the 3 and 4 defendants. The General Power of Attorney Deed executed in favour of the 1 st defendant by the Plaintiff has explicitly defined the object of the Agency only to develop and construct the ‘A’ Schedule property into apartment and knowing it very well, the defendants 3 and 4 joined their hands with the 1 st defendant and created sham and nominal Sale Deed. 2.3. The 2 nd and 6 th defendants were deleted in the Plaint as per the order of this Court. The ‘B’ schedule property and the alternative prayers (i) and (iii) viz., Specific performance of the Sale Agreement dated 06.10.2016 and to cancel the Mortgage Deed dated 25.05.2016 were deleted based on the memo filed by the Plaintiff. 3. Brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the 2 nd defendant are as follows:- The Suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The 2 nd defendant denies all the averments stated in the Plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The 2 nd defendant is misjoinder of necessary parties, because there is no transaction between the Plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant. The 2 nd defendant is not aware of any transaction between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. The 2 nd defendant denies all the averments stated in the Plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The 2 nd defendant is misjoinder of necessary parties, because there is no transaction between the Plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant. The 2 nd defendant is not aware of any transaction between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. The 2 nd defendant, being the Principal like the Plaintiff of other property, is facing lot of problems because of the 1 st defendant. The building is still not completed in full shape and the defendant is forced to complete the construction of his portion of property and he is staying there. The 1 st defendant, without the knowledge of the 2 nd defendant, has entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff knowing very well that the schedule property is in mortgage has entered into a Sale Agreement with the 1 st defendant for the cause of which he alone is solely responsible and the Plaintiff has not claimed any relief as against the 2 nd defendant. The Plaintiff is in illegal occupation of the building premises in which the 2 nd defendant is the absolute owner. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 3.1. Brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the 3 rd defendant are as follows:- The Suit is not maintainable. The 3 rd defendant save that are otherwise specifically admitted herein denies all the averments, allegations and claims of the Plaintiff and put him to the strict proof of the same. It is true that the Plaintiff was the owner of the ‘A’ Schedule property and he purchased the same through a Sale Deed dated 28.12.1991. As on the date of filing the Plaint, the Plaintiff is not the owner of the property and the said property was conveyed to the defendants 3 and 4 for a valuable sale consideration through a Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017. The 3 and 4 defendants have no privy to those dealings between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant, through a Power Deed dated 06.10.2016 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant. The 3 and 4 defendants have no privy to those dealings between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant, through a Power Deed dated 06.10.2016 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant. Though there are some references to the intention of the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant to construct an apartment building, the later parts of the said Deed of General Power of Attorney has given wide power to the Power Agent including to sell the property in ‘A’ schedule property either in parts to any purchaser or purchasers. The said Power Deed empowered the 1 st defendant to negotiate the terms and to sell the ‘A’ Schedule property to any purchaser or purchasers in his absolute discretion. Therefore it is incorrect to state that the 1 st defendant had no authority to convey the property to 3 and 4 defendants. The Plaintiff was aware of the mortgage of ‘A’ schedule property in favour of one M/s. Pinnacle Finance for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. The averment that the 3 and 4 defendants joined with the 1 st and 5 th defendants, had created a sham and nominal Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 is false. Already the Plaintiff had handed over the vacant possession of ‘A’ Schedule property to the 1 st defendant and thereby, the 1 st defendant had executed the Sale Deed in favour of the 3 and 4 defendants and they paid valuable sale consideration and the Sale Deed is dated 05.04.2017 and the same is hit by the Limitation Act. The defendants 3 and 4 are enjoying the ‘A’ schedule mentioned property by way of erecting individual super structure since 2017 onwards. If at all there is any dispute between the 1 st defendant and the Plaintiff in respect of the exchange of property or sale of flat whatsoever, the Plaintiff must proceed against the 1 st defendant alone. The Plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief against the 3 and 4 defendants or restrain them from enjoying or dealing with the property in any way they want. The Plaintiff has no specific and legally valid cause of action to seek any relief from the Court against the 3 and 4 defendants. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 3.2. The 4 th defendant has adopted the written statement filed by the 3 rd defendant. 4. The Plaintiff has no specific and legally valid cause of action to seek any relief from the Court against the 3 and 4 defendants. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 3.2. The 4 th defendant has adopted the written statement filed by the 3 rd defendant. 4. Based on the above pleadings, after hearing both sides and after perusing the entire records, this Court has framed the following issues on 24.02.2025: (1) Whether the 1st defendant has misused the Registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 executed in his favour by the plaintiff in pursuance to Joint Venture Agreement, Construction Agreement, Sale Agreement all dated 06.10.2016 executed in favour of 1st defendant by the plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek cancellation of the Registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule A property? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of declaration of Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016 entered between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as null and void? (4) Whether the plaintiff is a victim of fraud by the act of the 1st defendant by mortgaging the schedule A property by a registered Mortgage Deed dated 26.10.2016 in favour of M/s.Pinnacle Finance on the strength of the General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016? (5) Whether the Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 Registered as Document No.1186 of 2017 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants is sham and nominal and a fraud committed upon the plaintiff? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief to cancel the Registered sale deed dated 05.04.2017 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants? (7) Whether the 3rd and 4th defendants are liable to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule A property to the plaintiff? (8) Whether the 1st defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.77,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards the balance consideration in respect of the schedule A property together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization? (9) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the cost of the suit? (10) To what are the relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 4.1. (9) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the cost of the suit? (10) To what are the relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 4.1. On a careful perusal of the records, it is seen that no issue has been framed in respect of the compensation when there is specific pleading and prayer for compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs towards demolition of existing building in the ‘A’ Schedule property and therefore, the following additional issue has been framed: Additional Issue: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation for demolishing the existing residential building in the Plaint Schedule ‘A’ property worth about Rs.25,00,000/- on the false pretext of constructing new apartment as per the Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016. Though the additional issue is framed at the time of pronouncing judgment the parties are well aware about the pleading and evidence also adduced in respect of damages, thereby adducing additional evidence for the additional issue is not required and the available evidence is sufficient to decide the suit. 5. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, on the side of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. On the side of defendant, DW1 was examined and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff would submit that the Plaintiff is a Senior citizen and he is the owner of the ‘A’ Schedule property and the 1 st defendant is the proprietor of M/s. V.S. Constructions and he is doing building constructions, thereby the 1 st defendant approached the Plaintiff for construction of apartments in the ‘A’ Schedule property and both had agreed to construct apartments in the ‘A’ schedule property. The total value of the property was fixed at Rs.1,65,00,000/- and Rs.85 lakhs has to be paid by the 1 st defendant to the Plaintiff and for the remaining Rs.80 lakhs, the 1 st defendant agreed to execute Sale Deed in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property, belonged to the 2 nd defendant, in favour of the Plaintiff. The total value of the property was fixed at Rs.1,65,00,000/- and Rs.85 lakhs has to be paid by the 1 st defendant to the Plaintiff and for the remaining Rs.80 lakhs, the 1 st defendant agreed to execute Sale Deed in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property, belonged to the 2 nd defendant, in favour of the Plaintiff. The 1 st defendant had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement and the as per the said agreement, the 1 st defendant has to complete the construction work within 9 months, at the time of commencement of construction in the ‘A’ Schedule property, the 1 st defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and a part payment has to be paid by the 1 st defendant upon the first booking of the flat in the construction project in ‘A’ Schedule property and after deducting the above said amount, the remaining balance amount has to be paid within 9 months from the date of commencement of the construction in the ‘A’ Schedule property. To that effect, a Joint Venture Agreement has been entered into between the parties i.e., Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant on 06.10.2016. On the same day, another agreement was also entered into between the 1 st defendant and the plaintiff for the purchase of ‘B’ Schedule property and also a Power of Attorney Deed was executed in favour of the 1 st defendant by the Plaintiff to sell the ‘A’ schedule property after completion of construction of apartments in the ‘A’ schedule property. However, without putting up construction, the 1 st defendant with connivance of the 5 th defendant, mortgaged the property with one M/s. Pinnacle Finance and thereafter, the property was sold to the 3 and 4 defendants by playing fraud towards the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not authorized the 1 st defendant to sell the property through Power Deed dated 06.10.2016. The said Power Deed was executed to sell the property after the construction of apartments, but without any construction of apartments, the property was sold to the 3 and 4 defendants. The 3 and 4 defendants have also knowledge about the agreement for construction of apartments and without construction of apartments, they had purchased the property, that too knowing very well that the said property was subjected for mortgage. The 3 and 4 defendants have also knowledge about the agreement for construction of apartments and without construction of apartments, they had purchased the property, that too knowing very well that the said property was subjected for mortgage. Therefore, the defendants 3 and 4, colluding with the 1 st defendant purchased the property, thereby, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit to cancel the said Sale Deed and also to execute the Sale Deed in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property and to pay damages and to return the balance sale consideration of Rs.77 lakhs and to declare the registered Mortgage Deed executed in favour of the 6 th defendant as null and void. 6.1. During the pendency of the Suit, the Plaintiff deleted the name of the 2 nd defendant and the 6 th defendant and the prayers in respect of Specific Performance of Contract with respect to the ‘B’ Schedule property and to cancel the Mortgage Deed dated 25.05.2016 executed between the 2 nd and the 6 th defendants. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, he examined PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and on the side of the defendants, they examined DW1 and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. The Plaintiff’s side evidences have clearly established the case of the Plaintiff and the defendants 3 and 4 also admitted that they know very well about the Joint Venture Agreement executed between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant and without considering the same, they purchased the property, thereby, the conduct of the defendants 3 and 4 would show about the collusion between the 1 st defendant and the defendants 3 and 4. The 3 rd defendant has the habit of purchasing disputed properties and therefore, the Plaintiff has established his case that in order to curtail the valuable rights of the Plaintiff in the ‘A’ Schedule property, the 1 st defendant in connivance with the 3 and 4 defendants executed a sham and nominal Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 and the said Sale Deed is liable to be cancelled and the defendants have to quit and deliver the possession of the property to the Plaintiff and also the 1 st defendant has to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs for demolishing the residential building in the ‘A’ Schedule property on the false pretext of constructing new apartment as per the Joint Venture Agreement and also the General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant and the Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016 in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property are liable to be cancelled and to be declared as null and void. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 3 and 4 would submit that the Plaintiff was the owner of the ‘A’ schedule property and he entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with the 1 st defendant and also executed a Power Deed dated 06.10.2016 to sell the said ‘A’ Schedule property. Based on the said Power Deed, the 1 st defendant had executed a Sale Deed in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 for a good and valuable consideration. The 3 and 4 defendants have purchased the property through a Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 and they also made constructions in the property, thereby they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the Plaintiff authorized the 1 st defendant to sell the property and based on the said Power Deed, the 3 and 4 defendants had purchased the property, the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek relief of cancellation of Sale Deed. If at all any transaction between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant, the Plaintiff has to seek remedy from the 1 st defendant only for the payment of money and thereby, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief through this Suit. In order to prove the case of the defendants, the 3 rd defendant was examined as DW1 and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 were marked. The defendants have established their case through the evidence. In order to prove the case of the defendants, the 3 rd defendant was examined as DW1 and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 were marked. The defendants have established their case through the evidence. The Plaintiff himself has admitted the execution of Power Deed and based on the said Power Deed only, the defendants 3 and 4 purchased the property, thereby the Suit is not maintainable. After execution of the Sale Deed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the defendants 3 and 4, the 1 st defendant has now become exparte. The Plaintiff, in collusion with the 1 st defendant, has filed the Suit. The defendants already muted out the revenue records in their names in the year 2017 itself. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the property by erecting premises in the year 2017 itself. The cancellation of Sale Deed is barred by limitation. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials. 9. In this case, there is no dispute that the ‘A’ Schedule property belonged to the Plaintiff through a Sale Deed dated 28.12.1991 and the Plaintiff entered into a Joint Venture Agreement and Construction Agreement with the 1 st defendant on 06.10.2016 and on the same day, the Plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1 st defendant. Based on the above said General Power of Attorney Deed, the 1 st defendant mortgaged the property to one M/s. Pinnacle Finance through a Mortgage Deed dated 26.10.2016 in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property. Thereafter, based on the said General Power of Attorney Deed, the 1 st defendant sold the property to the defendants 3 and 4 through a Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017. Now the Plaintiff challenged the said Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 as sham and nominal document and also sought for reliefs to declare that the Joint Ventre Agreement and Construction Agreement are not valid and to cancel the General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016. 10. This Court framed appropriate issues. As far as the issue no.1 that Whether the 1st defendant has misused the Registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 executed in his favour by the plaintiff in pursuance to Joint Venture Agreement, Construction Agreement, Sale Agreement all dated 06.10.2016 executed in favour of 1st defendant by the plaintiff? 10. This Court framed appropriate issues. As far as the issue no.1 that Whether the 1st defendant has misused the Registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 executed in his favour by the plaintiff in pursuance to Joint Venture Agreement, Construction Agreement, Sale Agreement all dated 06.10.2016 executed in favour of 1st defendant by the plaintiff? is concerned, the case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the ‘A’ Schedule property and he entered into a Joint Venture Agreement and Construction Agreement with the 1 st defendant in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property and also executed a General Power of Attorney Deed dated 06.10.2016 in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property. As per the Joint Venture Agreement and Construction Agreement, the 1 st defendant has to construct apartments in the ‘A’ Schedule property and he has to pay Rs.1,65,00,000/- to the Plaintiff, in which, Rs.85 lakhs shall be paid by the 1 st defendant to the Plaintiff and for the remaining Rs.80 lakhs, a Sale Agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant on 06.10.2016 in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property, which belongs to the 2 nd defendant. The Plaintiff has also sought for the relief in respect of Specific Performance of Contract in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property. Thereafter, the name of the 2 nd defendant was deleted and the ‘B’ Schedule property and the prayer in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property were also deleted. There is no dispute in respect of Joint Venture Agreement, Construction Agreement and General Power of Attorney Deed executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant dated 06.10.2016. According to the Plaintiff, the General Power of Attorney executed for sale of the property after construction of apartment. The General Power of Attorney Deed was executed based on the Joint Venture Agreement and Construction agreement and the 1 st defendant has no power to execute any Sale Deed without making construction in the ‘A’ Schedule property. However, according to the Plaintiff, by misusing the said General Power of Attorney Deed dated 06.10.2016, the 1 st defendant had executed the Sale Deed in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 and sold the property to them. 11. However, according to the Plaintiff, by misusing the said General Power of Attorney Deed dated 06.10.2016, the 1 st defendant had executed the Sale Deed in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 and sold the property to them. 11. The above said Joint Venture Agreement has been marked as Ex.P.2, the original Construction Agreement has been marked as Ex.P.3 and the certified copy of the General Power of Attorney Deed has been marked as Ex.P.5. On a careful perusal of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, those documents reveal that the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant agreed to construct apartments in the ‘A’ Schedule property and the 1 st defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.85 lakhs and the 1 st defendant has to execute Sale Deed in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs. Out of the said Rs.85 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs has to be paid after commencement of the construction in the ‘A’ Schedule property by the 1 st defendant and thereafter, a part payment has to be paid by the 1 st defendant at the time of first booking of apartment in the property and the remaining amount has to be paid within 9 months period of construction. According to the Plaintiff, after entering into the Joint Venture Agreement and Construction Agreement, no construction was commenced in the ‘A’ Schedule property. Based upon the Joint Venture Agreement, the Plaintiff also demolished the existing building in the ‘A’ Schedule property and handed over the vacant possession to the 1 st defendant. However, the 1 st defendant has not constructed any apartment as agreed by him through the agreement. Per contra, he mortgaged the property to one M/s. Pinnacle Finance through a Mortgage Deed dated 26.10.2016 for construction, but without putting up any construction, he sold the said property to the 3 and 4 defendants. The purpose of giving Power of Attorney was to sell the property after construction of the apartments, but without putting up any construction in the property, the 1 st defendant sold the property to the 3 and 4 defendants. 12. The purpose of giving Power of Attorney was to sell the property after construction of the apartments, but without putting up any construction in the property, the 1 st defendant sold the property to the 3 and 4 defendants. 12. A conjoint reading of Ex.P.2 - Original Joint Venture Agreement, Ex.P.3 – Original Construction Agreement and Ex.P.5 - Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, the intention of the parties would show that the 1 st defendant has to construct apartments in the ‘A’ Schedule property, thereafter he has to pay Rs.10 lakhs immediately after commencement of the construction, thereafter at the time of first booking of apartment, some part amount has to be paid and the remaining amount has to be paid within 9 months from the date of construction. But the 1 st defendant has not performed his part of contract as per the agreement. Therefore, according to the Plaintiff, he misused the power executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant on 06.10.2016. This Court also perused the Power of Attorney Deed dated 06.10.2016. The recitals of the Power of Attorney Deed would show that the Principal has decided to develop an Apartment Complex over the Schedule mentioned property and sell by way of undivided share of land due to his personal inconvenience is not able to take steps for the sale of undivided share of land in the schedule or other developmental activities in respect of the entire schedule property and have therefore decided to appoint the Agent herein to carry out the said activities in respect of the schedule mentioned property. The above said recitals clearly show that the purpose of giving Power of Attorney is to develop the property and to sell. Therefore, the 1 st defendant has to sell the property only after construction of apartments. 13. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, he has examined PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The evidences on the side of Plaintiff would clearly establish the case of the Plaintiff. The 1 st defendant has not entered into Witness box and he simply remained exparte and therefore, there is no rebuttal evidence in respect of the documents executed between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant such as the Joint Venture and Construction Agreement and Power of Attorney. The 1 st defendant has not entered into Witness box and he simply remained exparte and therefore, there is no rebuttal evidence in respect of the documents executed between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant such as the Joint Venture and Construction Agreement and Power of Attorney. The competent witnesses, to speak about the Power Deed, Joint Venture Agreement and the Construction Agreement, are the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. The Plaintiff entered into the Witness box and he was cross examined by the 3 and 4 defendants, but not cross examined by the 1 st defendant. The 1 st defendant has not entered into the Witness box, thereby the evidence of PW1 is reliable and acceptable. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and plaintiff side documents they revealed that the 1 st defendant has misused the registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016. Thus, issue no.1 is answered. 14. As far as issue no.2 that Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek cancellation of the Registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule A property? is concerned, this Court in previous issue, has decided after analysing the documents viz., Joint Venture Agreement, Construction Agreement and the General Power of Attorney Deed dated 06.10.2016, that the 1 st defendant has misused the registered Power of Attorney Deed dated 06.10.2016. The 1 st defendant has not complied with the terms of the agreement. As per the agreement, the construction has to be completed within 9 months, but the 1 st defendant has not constructed apartments within time and further, he also sold the property to the defendants 3 and 4 and once the property is sold, the Power of Attorney Deed has no validity. Therefore, the said Power of Attorney Deed executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant in respect of the ‘A’ Schedule property, need not be cancelled. Thus, the issue no.2 is answered. 15. As far as issue no.3 that Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of declaration of Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016 entered between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as null and void? Thus, the issue no.2 is answered. 15. As far as issue no.3 that Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of declaration of Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016 entered between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as null and void? is concerned, there is no dispute that the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant have entered into a Joint Venture and Construction Agreements in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property dated 06.10.2016, and without complying the terms of the said agreements, the ‘A’ schedule property itself was sold by the 1 st defendant, thereby after sale of the said ‘A’ Schedule property, the Joint Venture Agreement has no validity and thereby, the said Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016, also need not to be declared as null and void as the same became infructuous. Thus the issue no.3 is answered. 16. As far as the issue no.4 that Whether the plaintiff is a victim of fraud by the act of the 1st defendant by mortgaging the schedule A property by a registered Mortgage Deed dated 26.10.2016 in favour of M/s.Pinnacle Finance on the strength of the General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016? is concerned, the Plaintiff has not included the above said M/s.Pinnacle Finance as one of the parties to the Suit and also there is no prayer in respect of the above said Mortgage Deed dated 26.10.2016. Already the Plaintiff has impleaded one M/s.Paceman Finance India Private Limited, as 6 th defendant and also sought relief in respect of Mortgage Deed dated 25.05.2016, in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property as alternative prayer and thereafter, the said prayer was given up and the same was deleted, through an order dated 07.01.2025. Therefore, without impleading the said M/s. Pinnacle Finance as one of the Parties to the Suit and without any prayer, it is not appropriate to decide this issue. Thus, the issue no.4 is answered. 17. As far as the issue no.5 that Whether the Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 Registered as Document No.1186 of 2017 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants is sham and nominal and a fraud committed upon the plaintiff? is concerned, this Court in Issue No.1 after elaborate discussion, decided that the 1 st defendant misused the registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 executed in his favour by the Plaintiff in pursuance to the Joint Venture and Construction Agreements. is concerned, this Court in Issue No.1 after elaborate discussion, decided that the 1 st defendant misused the registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 executed in his favour by the Plaintiff in pursuance to the Joint Venture and Construction Agreements. The 3 rd defendant, who was examined as DW1, has also admitted that he had knowledge about the Joint Venture Agreement prior to the purchase of the ‘A’ Schedule property from the 1 st defendant. In this context, he deposed in his cross examination that he knows about the Joint Venture Agreement (Ex.P.2) entered between Satheesh (1 st defendant) and Harimoorthy (Plaintiff) in Q. No.24. In Q. No.25, he admitted that Satheesh showed the Joint Venture Agreement (Ex.P.2) to him. In Q. No.26, he admitted that he had read over the Joint Venture Agreement (Ex.P.2) with the help of his Advocate before purchasing the Suit property. Also in Q. No.27, he admitted that the purpose of the Joint Venture Agreement is to develop the Suit property and construct flats. However, his Advocate said that the 1 st defendant is having right to sell the property also. Further, when a question was put to him that Joint Venture Agreement in Clause 9, it was mentioned that to develop the Suit property and construct flats and after that he has the right to sell the undivided share of the land to the purchasers of the flats to be constructed, it was denied by DW1. However, according to him, the 1 st defendant has right to sell the property according to Joint Venture Agreement. 18. Further the 3 rd defendant / DW1 admitted that he paid Rs.25 lakhs to the 1 st defendant to settle the bank loan. Therefore, he has knowledge about the recitals of the Joint Venture Agreement and Power Deed and also about the mortgage of the property in favour of one M/s. Pinnacle Finance. As per the recitals of the Joint Venture Agreement, it is clear that the 1 st defendant has to construct apartments in the ‘A’ schedule property and thereafter only, he can sell the property, thereby, the 1 st defendant has no right to sell the property without construction. As per the recitals of the Joint Venture Agreement, it is clear that the 1 st defendant has to construct apartments in the ‘A’ schedule property and thereafter only, he can sell the property, thereby, the 1 st defendant has no right to sell the property without construction. Since the 1 st defendant failed to put up construction and as per the Joint Venture and Construction agreements, he has only to develop the property and thereafter only, the 1 st defendant has power to sell the property, thereby the Plaintiff is entitled to seek relief to cancel the Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 executed by the 1 st defendant in faovur of the 3 and 4 defendants. When there are categorical recitals in the Joint Venture Agreement that the 1 st defendant has to construct the apartments and thereafter, he has to sell the property and without putting up any construction, the property was sold to the 3 and 4 defendants, that too without clearing the mortgage debts, the property was purchased by the defendants 3 and 4. An ordinary prudent man cannot purchase the property after knowing that it was subjected for mortgage. The conduct of the defendants 3 and 4 would show that after knowing about the Joint Venture Agreement that the 1 st defendant has to construct apartments and thereafter only, it has to be sold, they purchased the property even without putting up any construction by the 1 st defendant. Therefore, the Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 3 and 4 defendants is a sham and nominal document. Thus the issue no.5 is answered. 19. As far as the issue no.6 that Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief to cancel the Registered sale deed dated 05.04.2017 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants? is concerned, this Court, in the previous point, has decided that the Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 is a sham and nominal document. The 3 and 4 defendants after knowing about the recitals of the Joint Venture Agreement, purchased the property even without construction. is concerned, this Court, in the previous point, has decided that the Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 is a sham and nominal document. The 3 and 4 defendants after knowing about the recitals of the Joint Venture Agreement, purchased the property even without construction. In Q. No.47, DW1 admitted that he knows about the execution of mortgage deed and he paid Rs.25 lakhs to the 1 st defendant and also he admitted that he is residing at the distance of half a kilometer from the Suit property and he has not even known about the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff, particularly, in Q. No.60 that he does not know that when the Plaintiff purchased the Suit property and he does not know about the Sale Deed dated 28.12.1991. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that the defendants 3 and 4 have not purchased the property after enquiry and they have not even verified about the previous title of the Plaintiff and without verifying the ownership of the property, they purchased the property and therefore, the above said conduct of the defendants 3 and 4 would clearly shows the collusion between the 1 st defendant and the 3 and 4 defendants. The 1 st defendant has also not appeared before this Court and he remained exparte. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of cancellation of Sale deed dated 05.04.2017 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 3 and 4 defendants and the said Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 is liable to be cancelled. Thus, the issue no.6 is answered. 20. As far as the issue no.7 that Whether the 3rd and 4th defendants are liable to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule A property to the plaintiff? is concerned, this Court in the previous issues decided that the Sale Deed executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 3 and 4 defendants is a sham and nominal document and the same is liable to be cancelled and the defendants 3 and 4 are liable to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the Plaintiff. Thus the issue no.7 is answered. 21. Thus the issue no.7 is answered. 21. As far as issue no.8 that Whether the 1st defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.77,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards the balance consideration in respect of the schedule A property together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization? is concerned, the Plaintiff has entered into an agreement with the 1 st defendant for sale of property to the tune of Rs.1,65,00,000/- and for Rs.80 lakhs, an agreement was entered into between them in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property and for the remaining amount of Rs.85 lakhs, already Rs.8 lakhs was paid, thereby, the Plaintiff has claimed the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.77 lakhs. Thereafter, the Plaintiff himself deleted the 2 nd defendant and the 6 th defendant and the prayers in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property. Therefore, if the ‘B’ Schedule property is granted to the Plaintiff and for the remaining amount, the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Rs.77 lakhs. This Court, in the previous issues, decided that the Sale Deed executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 itself is a sham and nominal document and the same has to be cancelled and the delivery of ‘A’ Schedule property has to be handed over to the Plaintiff, thereby granting a decree for the balance sale consideration in respect of ‘A’ schedule property to the tune of Rs.77 lakhs will not arise at all. Thus, issue no.8 is answered. 22. As far as the additional issue that whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs for demolishing the existing building while entering into the Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016 with the 1 st defendant is concerned, according to the Plaintiff already he constructed the building in the ‘A’ schedule property and thereafter, since he entered into an agreement with the 1 st defendant for development and to construct apartments, he demolished the entire portion of the building and thereafter, he handed over the vacant side to the 1 st defendant, and therefore, he claimed Rs.25 lakhs from the 1 st defendant. The Plaintiff has not filed any document to show that what was the cost incurred for demolishing the said building in the ‘A’ schedule property and before entering into a Joint Venture Agreement, the property was demolished and without any evidence, it is not appropriate to grant such a relief. Further the Plaintiff has himself admitted that he received money from the 1 st defendant to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs and thereby, the same can be treated as compensation for the above said demolition of the existing building. In view of the same, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in respect of compensation. 23. As far as the issue no.9 that Whether the defendants are liable to pay the cost of the suit? is concerned, when there are Joint Venture agreement and Construction Agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1 st defendant and the Plaintiff has executed a General Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the 1 st defendant, the 1 st defendant has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the cost from the 1 st defendant. 24. As far as the issue no.10 that ‘to what are the reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?’ is concerned, this Court, through Issue Nos.1 to 9, has decided that the 1 st defendant has misused the registered General Power of Attorney Deed dated 06.10.2016 and the relief in respect of cancellation of registered Power of Attorney dated 06.10.2016 and the relief in respect of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.10.2016 would not arise at all, since already those documents have been acted upon and hence those prayers have become ‘infructuous’. This Court has also decided that the Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 vide Doc. No.1186/2017 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 3 and 4 defendants are sham and nominal document and the same is liable to be cancelled and the 3 and 4 defendants are liable to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is not entitled to damages and he is not entitled to any other relief. 25. In the result, the Civil Suit is partly decreed, with cost of 1 st defendant. 25. In the result, the Civil Suit is partly decreed, with cost of 1 st defendant. (i) The Sale Deed dated 05.04.2017 executed by the 1 st defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 vide Doc. No.1186 of 2017 in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property on the file of the 5 th defendant, is cancelled. (ii) The defendants 3 and 4 are directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the ‘A’ Schedule property to the Plaintiff. (iii) In respect of other reliefs, the Civil Suit is dismissed. 26.The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed accordingly.