No Prudent Man Would Remain Silent For 22 Yrs: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Registered GPA As Being 'Coerced'
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has imposed a fine and dismissed the case of a petitioner, seeking to challenge a General Power of Attorney that was executed and registered by him 22 years ago to clear a debt owed by his younger sister's husband.The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the dismissal order by the lower court in a suit filed by him in 2017 for declaration...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has imposed a fine and dismissed the case of a petitioner, seeking to challenge a General Power of Attorney that was executed and registered by him 22 years ago to clear a debt owed by his younger sister's husband.
The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the dismissal order by the lower court in a suit filed by him in 2017 for declaration and perpetual injunction. He averred that he was coerced and forced into executing the GPA for the property owned by him, so as to clear a debt owed by his brother-in-law.
The case of the petitioner/plaintiff was that, in 1994, his brother-in-law approached him stating that he had taken a loan from one Mandapu Venakteswara Rao and was unable to pay the loan amount back. The petitioner/plaintiff accompanied his brother-in-law to Venakteswara Rao's residence where it was decided that the petitioner would sell his property to Venakteswara Rao till the loan amount was paid back. A GPA was executed and the transfer was made. In December 2016, when the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner were able to return the loan amount, the property was transferred in their name.
The petitioner pleaded that the respondents were not in the capacity to pay the amount and discrepancies were evident in their cross examination regarding the mode of payment.
The respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner himself executed the GPA and got it registered, which is proved by his signatures on the document. They also contended that they purchased the suit land for a legitimate consideration and if the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to raise objections he ought to have produced his original documents and challenge the GPA, both, which he failed to do.
Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu took an adverse view of the Petitioner knocking at the doors of court after 22 years had lapsed since the GPA. It noted that the petitioner was an educated man and despite the GPA being a registered document he did not seek to cancel it even after a period of 22 years. The bench noted that such actions are not that of a prudent man.
"A man of reasonable prudence would not have kept quiet for a considerable period of 22 years having signed document in the Registrar Officee..His evidence that he obtained the copy of document in the year 2017 is nothing but improbable and against natural course of human conduct. The knowledge of the contents of Ex.B.2 can as well be attributed to the plaintiff. If really plaintiff signed Ex.B.2 either at the compulsion of Mandapu Venakteswara Rao or his sister or brother-in-law, he would not have kept quiet without raising his little finger for 22 years."
On the issue of whether the respondents/defendants were in the capacity to pay the suit schedule value or not, the Bench noted that it does not concern the petitioner as he was not the receiver of the amount. The Bench also held that on mere discrepancies regarding the mode of payment, the case of the defendants could not be thrown out.
"Whatever the reason may be on account of some discrepancy in the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 as to the manner in which the consideration under Ex.B.1 was paid, the case of the defendant cannot be thrown out. The consideration was a matter between Mandapu Venakteswara Rao and the defendant. When the evidence on record reveals that the plaintiff miserably failed to probabalize his contention that Ex.B.2 was vitiated as it was not executed voluntarily, he cannot support his contention basing on the so-called small discrepancy between the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 as to the manner in which consideration under Ex.B.1 was paid."
The Bench noted that although there were a few discrepancies, the evidence of both the defendants was more or less on the same lines.
"It is a case where he kept quiet all through for about 22 or 23 years having executed Ex.B.2. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot succeed basing on the weakness of the defendant. It is the plaintiff who approached the Court seeking declaration of title without making proper pleadings so as to brand Ex.B.2 as vitiated by fraud or undue influence or coercion," Court said and dismissed the appeal.
Case no.: AS1569 of 2018
Counsel for petitioner: V. Venugopal Rao
Counsel for respondent: Sunkara Rajendra Prasad