K K GOVINDAN Vs. K G PREMSANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Petition arises out of the judgment of this Court dated 4.11.2016 in R.F.A.No.140 of 2010. The review petitioner is the additional 2nd appellant in the said appeal, which arises out of the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur dated 23.12.2009 in O.S.No.23/1992, a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 3.93 acres, comprised in Sy.No.4/1 of Madakkathara Village, covered by Ext.A1 settlement deed No.2491/74 of SRO Ollukkara dated 13.5.1974.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property belongs to him, which he obtained as per Ext.A1 settlement deed No.2491/74 of SRO Ollukkara dated 13.5.1974. The 1 st defendant is the father and the 2 nd defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had to go abroad for advanced training and higher studies, he executed Ext.A2 power of attorney No.277/83 of SRO Ollukkara dated 18.6.1983 in favour of the 1 st defendant, authorising him to sell the plaint schedule property for sufficient consideration. By the end of 1984, the plaintiff returned to India and thereupon, he cancelled Ext.A2 power of attorney, by executing Ext.A3 cancellation deed bearing No.433/85 of SRO Ollukkara dated 28.9.1985. The defendants came to know about the cancellation of Ext.A2 power of attorney immediately after execution of Ext.A3 deed. While the plaintiff was abroad, the 1 st defendant was managing the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ext.A2 power of attorney and he does not have any independent right over the said property.

(3.) On 25.8.1991, the plaintiff came to know that the 1 st defendant fraudulently and in violation of the trust reposed on him by the plaintiff, executed Ext.A4 document No.2697/85 of SRO Ollukkara dated 14.6.1985 on the strength of Ext.A2 power of attorney. As per the recitals in Ext.A4 document, the 1 st defendant gifted the plaint schedule property to the 2 nd defendant. The plaintiff contended that, the 1 st defendant has no power to execute a document like Ext.A4 and that, the 2 nd defendant did not obtain any right over the said property on the strength of Ext.A4. Therefore, in the plaint, the plaintiff sought for a declaration that, Ext.A4 document No.2697/1985 dated 14.6.1985 of SRO Ollukkara is void ab initio, not binding upon the plaint schedule property or his right, title and interest over the said property and that, he is having absolute right, title and possession over that property. The plaintiff has also sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from taking usufructs from the plaint schedule property or interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property or executing any documents concerning the same in the name of any person other than the plaintiff or inducting strangers into the said property or committing any waste therein.