S V DORAISAMY Vs. T DAYALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the revisions arise out of the judgment in C.M.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamalee dismissing the order in I.A.Nos.325 and 326 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Tambaram.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.325 of 1999 under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession of the suit property by him pending the suit and the application in I.A.No.326 of 1999 was filed praying for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating encumbering or registering any document in respect of B schedule properties till the disposal of the application. THE trial Court dismissed both the applications. On appeal also, both C.M.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2000 on the file of Sub-Court, Poonamallee, were dismissed. Hence, the present two revision petitions by the plaintiff.

(3.) MR.Venkatapathy. learned senior counsel for the respondents contended that there was no valid power of attorney as on date and that the power of attorney at any rate had been cancelled. The suit was also barred by limitation and the plaintiff as on the date cannot pray for specific performance and hence he has no prima facie case. For the same reason, he cannot also rely on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further contended that the power of attorney cannot sue the principal and he cannot have any independent right as against the principal. The power of attorney was a revocable one. He would further submit that a person who had the title was deemed to be in possession. The defendants have clearly denied their signatures. Reliance is also placed on the circumstances that the stamp papers are dated 10.1.1991 and that there was no reference to the sale agreement in the power of attorney. There is also no reference to the sale agreement in the legal notice or the legal opinion which was subsequently tendered in 1993 Ex.B.54. There was also enough documentary evidence to show that the defendants were continuously fighting for and asserting their rights over the property from the beginning. Learned Senior counsel for the defendants also relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Rukmani Devi Arundale Trust v. S.Easwaran , 1992 (1) L.W. 489, holding that in a suit filed by the owner of the property after terminating the agency, the agent cannot plead that he was in exclusive possession so as to exclude even the owner/principal and that in such a case, no interim injunction can be granted in favour of the agent/plaintiff.