Court Can't Use Inherent Powers To Grant Money Decree When It Is Not Pleaded, Discloses Clear Jurisdictional Error: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has reiterated that it cannot use inherent powers to mould the relief sought and grant a money decree when the same has not been sought or pleaded by the party. Justice AD Maria Clete added that the inherent power of the court should be exercised within the framework of the CPC and the relief should be granted in accordance with the law, complying with the procedural and fiscal requirements. “Though the Court possesses inherent power to mould the relief, such power must be exercised within the framework of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court does not have any extraordinary authority to grant relief to a person who has neither invoked its jurisdiction in the manner known to law nor complied with the procedural and fiscal requirements mandated under the CPC and the Court-Fees Act. A money decree granted ultra petita, in favour of a party who has neither sought nor pleaded such relief, discloses a clear jurisdictional error,” the court observed. The court also remarked that granting a relief which was not sought either by way of counterclaim or through independent proceedings amounts to travelling beyond the pleadings and violates the settled principle that no party can be granted a relief which has not been prayed or proved. Background The court was hearing an appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge in Salem. The suit was originally filed challenging a sale deed and a sale agreement entered into between respondents. The plaintiff submitted that he was the absolute owner of the suit property had approached the second defendant for a loan of Rs 5,00,000. As a security for the loan, the second defendant obtained a sale agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant and also a power of attorney in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff had submitted that without her knowledge, the defendants cancelled the sale agreement and acting under the power of attorney, executed another sale deed in favour of the third defendant. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff had entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant fixing a period of eight months for completion of sale but insisted it to be completed within 3 months. Due to the plaintiff's insistence on early completion, the suit property was proposed to be sold to the third defendant for which the early sale agreement was cancelled and the power of attorney was acted upon. The defendants thus denied any collusion and contended that the suit is false, vexatious and liable to be dismissed. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the sale deed and the sale agreement was null and void. Further, the trial court also suo motu directed the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 with interests. The third defendant had filed the appeal challenging this order of the trial court. It was argued that the trial court should have dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC and did not adduce any oral evidence to substantiate the allegations of fraud and collusion. The court observed that the parties were known to each other. The court also noted that even as per the defence version, the plaintiff was present during all transactions. The court remarked that if that was the case, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to cancel the sale agreement through the power of attorney. Thus, the court concluded that the sale agreement was cancelled and the subsequent sale agreement was entered into without the knowledge of the plaintiff. The court also criticised the approach taken by the trial court in suo motu directing the plaintiff to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the defendant. The court remarked that court could not have given a relief in the nature of a money decree when it had not been claimed by the parties. Thus, though the court refused to interfere with the order declaring the sale agreement as null and void, the court set aside the direction of the court asking the plaintiff to pay Rs. 5,00,000. Counsel for Appellant: Mr. T. Murugamanickam Senior Counsel for M/s. Zeenath Begam Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. Jagadish Case Title: Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36 Case No: A.S. No. 644 of 2019Click Here To Read/Download the Judgment

Court Can't Use Inherent Powers To Grant Money Decree When It Is Not Pleaded, Discloses Clear Jurisdictional Error: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags