LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-292

NAGAMMAL Vs. K THANGAVEL

Decided On September 20, 2010
NAGAMMAL Appellant
V/S
K. THANGAVEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31.7.2009, made in A.S.No.107 of 2007, on the file of the 1st Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.2006, made in O.S.No.3987 of 2004, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE defendants 11 to 14 in the suit, in O.S.No.3987 of 2004, are the appellants in the present second appeal. THE plaintiffs in the said suit are the respondents herein. THE suit, in O.S.No.3987 of 2004, had been filed, praying for a decree of declaration, declaring that the sale deeds, under document Nos.1365 of 1998 and 1367 of 1998, made in favour of the defendants 11 to 14 are fraudulent, invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs, and for a further declaration that the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 6 are the absolute owners of the suit property mentioned under schedules I to III, and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 11 to 14 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties, by the plaintiffs 2, 5 and 6, and for costs.

(3.) IT had also been stated that, on 24.4.1992, Arumuga Asari and his sons and daughters, who are the defendants 1 to 10 in the suit, had also executed a confirmation letter, confirming the agreement for sale executed by Arumuga Asari and the receipt of the entire sale consideration of Rs.3,23,000/-. They had also agreed not to revoke the general power of attorney executed in favour of the first plaintiff. The said defendants, along with Arumuga Asari, had handed over the possession of the lands in question, pursuant to the earlier agreement for sale. They had also handed over the original title deed, dated 11.4.1960 and other related documents, like, Patta, passbook, kist receipts, Chitta and adangal etc. Thus, the agreement for sale and the general power of attorney had become irrevocable, as it was coupled with interest. The defendants 1 to 10 and the said Arumuga Asari had received the entire sale price.