BALAKRISHNAN Vs. R.JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 & 8. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation for the Respondents 1 to 6 and they were also called absent. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order, dated 27.9.2013 made in I.A. No. 1079 of 2010 in O.S. No. 143 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem.

(2.) It is seen that the Suit in O.S. No. 143 of 2009 was filed by the Petitioner herein, originally against the Respondents 1 to 6. As per the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff, the Suit property was originally belonged to one Rama Gounder. The Respondents 1 to 5, who were Defendants in the Suit are the legal heirs of the said Rama Gounder, after his death.

(3.) According to Mr. G.K. Ilandhirayan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the said Rama Gounder had executed a Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the Sixth Respondent/Sixth Defendant, Saravanan on 13.7.2006. By virtue of the Power of Attorney deed executed by Rama Gounder in favour of the Sixth Respondent herein, he entered into an agreement to sell the Suit schedule of property to the Petitioner/Plaintiff. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as per the Agreement, Sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 21 lakhs and out of which Rs. 7 lakhs was paid by the Petitioner to Rama Gounder through his Power of Attorney, the Sixth Respondent herein. Since Rama Gounder failed to execute Sale Deed, as per the terms of Agreement of Sale, after the death of the said Rama Gounder, the Petitioner filed Suit against Defendants 1 to 5 as legal heirs of Rama Gounder and the Sixth Defendant as Power of Attorney of Rama Gounder.