Date: Jan 3, 2026

Courts Cannot Grant Money Decrees to Defendants Without Pleadings or Counter-Claim (Ultra Petita)

1. Introduction

This decision of the Madras High Court in THANGAPANDIYAN v. JAYALAKSHMI (A.S. No.644 of 2019, decided on 02.01.2026) arose from a property dispute in which the plaintiff (Jayalakshmi) challenged (i) a sale deed dated 04.10.2013 executed by her alleged power agent (second defendant) in favour of the third defendant, and (ii) a sale agreement dated 04.10.2013 between the first and third defendants.

The plaintiff’s core case was that she had sought a loan of Rs.5,00,000 and that the power of attorney and earlier sale agreement dated 17.06.2013 were obtained only as security; she alleged the later sale deed was executed without her knowledge and without consideration, through collusion. The defendants asserted a genuine sale transaction, payment of consideration, and delivery of possession.

The trial court decreed the suit, declared the impugned instruments null and void, and suo motu also directed the plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000 with interest to the second defendant. The third defendant appealed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court confirmed the trial court’s declaration that the sale deed dated 04.10.2013 (Ex.A4) is not valid, being surrounded by suspicious circumstances not satisfactorily explained by the defendants.
As to the sale agreement dated 04.10.2013 (Ex.A6), the Court treated it as sham/nominal and noted it had been cancelled during the suit; hence it was effectively out of the field.
On possession, since the property was a vacant site, the Court applied the principle that possession follows title, and held the plaintiff deemed in possession as title remained with her.
Critically, the High Court set aside the trial court’s direction requiring the plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000 with interest to the second defendant, holding that a money decree cannot be granted to a defendant absent pleadings/counter-claim and without compliance with court-fee requirements.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, but the money-direction against the plaintiff was removed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment does not cite any prior case law by title. Instead, it relies on established doctrinal principles, statutory provisions, and procedural maxims, notably:

judex ne eat ultra petita partium (a court should not go beyond what the parties have sought), applied to strike down the trial court’s grant of a money decree to the defendant without a counter-claim.
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, discussed in argument to stress the primacy of documentary terms; the Court nevertheless evaluated whether the registered documents were credible in the face of suspicious circumstances.
Section 151 CPC (inherent powers), considered and limited: it cannot justify granting an entirely unprayed relief to a defendant.

In effect, this decision is “precedent-light” but “principle-heavy”: it consolidates procedural discipline (pleadings and court-fees) and substantive scrutiny (genuineness of power-agent conveyances) without resting on named earlier authorities.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(A) Scrutiny of the power-of-attorney sale (Ex.A4): “registered” does not mean “beyond suspicion”

Although the defendants leaned on the existence of successive registered documents and on the admitted execution of the power of attorney dated 17.06.2013 (Ex.A2), the Court held that the sale deed of 04.10.2013 was not proved as a genuine, consideration-backed transfer.

The Court’s reasoning turned on internal contradictions and improbabilities:

D.W.1’s inconsistency: the second defendant (power agent) first claimed knowledge of the earlier sale agreement (Ex.A3), then in cross-examination claimed he had no knowledge of it—undermining the defence narrative.
Implausibility of the “buyer-identification” story: if Ex.A3 already identified the first defendant as purchaser and fixed consideration and time, the Court found it improbable that a prudent owner would also execute an open-ended power of attorney authorising sale to third parties—supporting the plaintiff’s “loan security” explanation.
Cancellation via power agent + “life certificate”: the defendants claimed the plaintiff was present and consenting on 04.10.2013. The Court treated it as suspicious that the cancellation of Ex.A3 was nevertheless done through the power agent and that a “life certificate” was produced—if the principal was truly present and consenting, these steps appeared unnecessary.
Consideration not proved: the Court dissected the alleged receipt (Ex.B5) as undated, with key particulars filled in ink, and with the sale document number inserted later—making the preparation and timing doubtful. It also found the testimony about the passing of consideration inadequate (D.W.3 did not speak clearly to date/passing of money).

The upshot is a clear rule-of-approach: where a power agent conveys immovable property, and the transaction is surrounded by unexplained suspicious circumstances (contradictions, improbable conduct, doubtful receipts, funding gaps), the court may refuse to treat registration alone as conclusive proof of genuineness.

(B) The interlinked “loan as sale” structure and Ex.A6

The defendants’ own pleading claimed the third defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000 from the first defendant, but the contemporaneous agreement (Ex.A6) showed an advance of only Rs.50,000, and later cancellation (Ex.B9) again reflected Rs.50,000. The first defendant (the alleged lender) was not examined.

These inconsistencies led the Court to treat Ex.A6 as a sham/nominal instrument. Further, since it was cancelled during the suit, it ceased to have operative effect.

(C) Possession of a vacant site: “possession follows title”

With no independent possession evidence and the property being vacant land, the Court applied the settled rule that possession follows title. Once Ex.A4 failed, the third defendant’s asserted possession collapsed with his title claim.

(D) The central procedural holding: no money decree for a defendant without pleadings/counter-claim and court-fee

The most explicit “precedent-setting” aspect lies in Point (iv). The High Court held the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by directing the plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000 with interest to the second defendant even though:

The second defendant had not pleaded a claim of debt recovery;
He had filed no counter-claim seeking a money decree;
The decree was granted without compliance with Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 requirements for a money claim.

The Court anchored this in judex ne eat ultra petita partium, and clarified the limits of “moulding relief”: a court may grant lesser/modified relief within the claim-framework, but cannot create an entirely new substantive relief in favour of a non-claiming defendant merely because evidence suggests the defendant might be owed money.

3.3 Impact

Sharper discipline on trial courts: This judgment is a caution against “equitable” money directions in favour of defendants who have not invoked the court’s jurisdiction through pleadings and a counter-claim.
Power-of-attorney transactions: Purchasers relying on power-agent conveyances should expect courts to examine surrounding circumstances (funding, receipts, consistency, necessity of “life certificates”) and not merely the fact of registration.
Litigation strategy: Defendants who believe they are owed money must file a counter-claim (or separate suit), pay proper court-fee, and plead material facts; they cannot depend on the court to grant relief sua sponte.
Documentary hygiene: Undated receipts with filled-in material particulars, and inconsistent documentation of advances/loans, are likely to be treated as suspicious—especially in intra-village/intra-family dealings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Power of Attorney (POA): A written authority allowing an agent to act for the principal. Even where a POA exists, the agent’s acts can be challenged if the transaction appears non-genuine (e.g., no real consideration) or surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Void vs. Voidable: A void transaction is a nullity in law; a voidable transaction is valid until set aside. Here, the Court treated the impugned sale deed as not valid due to lack of proof of genuine consent/consideration and suspicious circumstances.
“Possession follows title”: For vacant land where physical possession is hard to prove, courts often presume the title-holder is in possession unless the other side proves actual possession.
Order VI Rule 4 CPC: Requires particulars of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, etc., to be pleaded with specificity. Even so, the Court can evaluate the transaction based on evidence and probabilities; deficiencies in the defence evidence can still prove fatal.
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act: Generally prevents oral evidence from contradicting the terms of written contracts. It does not immunize a document from scrutiny where the issue is whether the document represents a real transaction at all (e.g., alleged sham documents).
Counter-claim: A claim by a defendant against the plaintiff in the same suit. Without a counter-claim (and proper court-fee), the court should not grant the defendant a money decree.
judex ne eat ultra petita partium: “The judge must not go beyond the parties’ prayers.” Courts decide disputes framed by pleadings; they do not create new reliefs for a party who never asked for them.

5. Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s decision accomplishes two important tasks. First, it reaffirms rigorous judicial scrutiny of power-of-attorney conveyances where the evidentiary trail of consent and consideration is doubtful and the documentation is internally inconsistent. Second—and most distinctively—it lays down a clear procedural boundary: a trial court cannot, in the name of “moulding relief” or inherent power, grant a money decree in favour of a defendant who has not pleaded it, has filed no counter-claim, and has not complied with court-fee requirements. This restores the primacy of pleadings, fiscal compliance, and adversarial fairness in civil adjudication.