P KUNHIRAMAN NAIR Vs. MAKKUNI PUTHIYAVALAPPIL USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs, who met their Waterloo at the hands of the lower appellate court are the appellants.

(2.) THERE is not much dispute regarding the facts. It is an admitted fact that at the relevant time the owner of the property was the defendant. According to the plaintiffs the defendant was heavily in debt, and therefore she had decided to sell the property. As per an oral sale dated 4.4.1988 property was sold to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, in order to get over the tax problems, the defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of P.W.3. The said power of attorney is marked as Ext.A1. It is claimed that as per Ext.A2, the power of attorney holder executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. They would say that since the husband of the defendant was seriously ill, she was permitted to continue residence in the building situate in the property. After the death of her husband, though she was asked to vacate, she did not do so and began to set up rights over the plaint schedule property. THEREfore, they were constrained to institute the suit.

(3.) THE defendant took up the matter in appeal. THE appellate court on an independent evaluation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant's plea that the power of attorney was not genuine appears to be correct. THE appellate court was of the view that there were quite a few suspicious circumstances indicating that the contentions taken by the defendant are probably true. THErefore, the lower appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Hence the Second Appeal by the plaintiffs.