(1.) This appeal arises from a suit which was instituted on the first of October 1981 on the strength of a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff executed on 23.11.1967 by a vendor whose title is traced to a sale deed dated 20.01.1966 and which document had been executed not by the owner of the property conveyed under the deed but, by a person describing himself as the holder of a power of attorney executed by the owner in Indonesia on 04.09.1962. Neither the original nor a certified copy of the power of attorney was produced by the plaintiff despite the fact that the execution of such a document by the owner of that property, namely an undivided share in two houses in Karaikal, had been put in issue by the defendants in the suit.
(2.) The trial Court as also the learned single Judge having granted decree declaring the plaintiff's title and directing partition and separate possession despite that lacuna, the defendants are in appeal before us.
(3.) The property claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff who is a real estate broker and a document writer, and which purchase is described by the defendants as speculative, was of undivided shares in two properties described in the plaint schedule 6/10th share of the house in 'A' schedule and 1/5th share in the house described in 'B' schedule. Those shares were the shares belonging to one Mohammed Yusuf who had inherited the properties of his mother Fathima. Fathima died on 23.05.1947. Fathima had received a half share in the plaint 'A' schedule property in terms of a Court decree in the year 1943, The other half belonged to her father. After her father's demise, in addition to her share she received 1/5th share in father's half share.In the 'B' schedule property she had, according to plaintiff, received a gift from Fathima's father's sister Katheeja. The remaining part of that plaint 'B' schedule had belonged to her father. After his demise she had become entitled to 1/5th share in the portion belonging to her father.