THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST & EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN versus M/S PONNIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON/ MANAGING TRUSTEE

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 03-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 404 
A 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST & 
EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED 
BY ITS CHAIRMAN 
v. 
M/S PONNIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST 
B 
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON/ MANAGING 
TRUSTEE 
(Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2012) 
JULY 03, 2012 
C 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
0. 7, r.1 read with rr. 14(1), 14(2) and Forms 47 and 48 
D in Appendix A - Suit for specific performance - Agreement of 
sale between plaintiff and second defendant - Plaint stating 
that second defendant as power of attorney-holder as also 
agreement holder of first defendant executed agreement of 
sale - Application for rejection of plaint as against first 
E defendant - Held: The plaintiff-respondent to get a decree for 
specific performance has to prove that there is a subsisting 
agreement in his favour and the second defendant has the 
necessary authority under the power of attorney - Neither the 
documents were filed nor terms thereof set out in the plaint -
In view of the shortfall in the plaint averment and non-
F compliance of statutory provisions, the single Judge of the 
High Court has correctly concluded that in the absence of any 
cause of action shown as against the appellant-first defendant, 
the suit cannot be proceeded either for specific performance 
or for the recovery of money advanced which according to the 
G plaintiff was given to the second defendant in the suit and 
rightly rejected the plaint as against the first defendant -
Cause of action. 
0. 7, r. 11 - Rejection of plaint - Suit for specific 
H 
404 
CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST & EDU. CHARITABLE 
405 
SOCIETY v. PONNIAMMAN EDU. TRUST 
performance - Power of attorney - Held: A power of attorney 
A 
has to be strictly construed - In order to agree to sell or effect 
a sale by a power of attorney, it should also expressly 
authorize the power to the agent to execute sale agreement! 
sale deed i.e., (~) to present the document before the 
Registrar; and (b) to admit execution of the document before 
B 
I 
the Registrar - Deeds and documents. 
0. 7, r. 11 - Rejection of plaint - Held: The power under 
0. 7 r. 11 can be ~ercised at any stage of the suit either before 
registering the pfaint or after the issuance of summons to the 
C 
defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial -
In order to consider 0. 7, r. 11, the court has to look into the 
averments in the plaint and the averments in the written 
statement are immaterial. 
0. 7, r. 11 - Application for rejection of plaint - Non-joinder D 
of party - Held: To reject the plaint even before registration of 
the plaint on one or more grounds mentioned in 0. 7, r. 11, 
the other defendants need not necessarily be heard at all as 
it does not affect their rights - In the instant case, second 
defendant is not a necessary party nor does the applicant-first 
E 
defendant seek any relief against him - Besides, the plea as 
to the non-joinder of party cannot be raised for the first time 
before Supreme Court if the same was not raised before the 
trial court and has not resulted in failure of justice. 
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963: 
F 
s. 20 - Held: The jurisdiction to grant specific 
performance is discretionary - In view of the conduct of the 
plaintiff, bereft of required materials as mandated by the 
statutory provisions, the plaint is liable to be rejected, as the 
G 
cause of action pleaded in the plaint is vitiated - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - 0. 7, r. 11. 
The appellant Society-1st defendant, on 9.1.1990, 
entered into an agreement of sale of certain property in 
H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A favour of defendant no. 2. On 19.10.1990, the appellant-
Society executed a registered power of attorney in favour 
of defendant no. 2 for limited purpose enabling him to 
represent the Society before the authorities. However, the 
said power of attorney was revoked on 15.10.1991 by a 
B registered document. Since defendant no. 2 failed to 
comply with the commitments, the appellant-Society, on 
19.11.1991 cancelled the agreement of sale dated 
7.1.1990. The suit filed by defendant no. 2 challenging the 
said cancellation was withdrawn in the year 2006. 
c Meanwhile, on 4.8.2001, defendant no. 2 entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding with the respondent-
plaintiff to sell certain portion of property as the 
agreement-holder and power of attorney agent of the 
appellant-Society. On 24.11.2004, the respondent-plainti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.