SENTHILSELVAN Vs. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit filed by the respondent herein, have filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 in A.S. No. 24 of 2005 passed by the First Appellate Court / Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004 passed by the trial Court / District Munsif, Sirkali, in O.S. No. 213 of 1994, was reversed allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff, who filed the Suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property, which was assigned by the Government belongs to him and as he lives in Bangalore, he wanted to sell the suit property. Therefore, he appointed his brother Sethuraj / 1st defendant as Power Agent on 19.3.1993. Defendants 2 to 4 are the alleged purchasers of the suit property and they were represented by their father Selvaraj Pillai in the capacity of Power Agent. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that as the first defendant attempted to sell the suit property for a low price, suspecting the bona fide of the Power Agent, he revoked the General Power given to the first defendant and the said cancellation of power is registered with the Sub Registrar, Mayiladuthurai on 28.6.1993. According to the plaintiff, the property is worth more than Rs.5 lakhs, whereas he came to know that the property was sold to defendants 2 to 4 for a sum of Rs.3,05,200/- and he received a registered post informing that Rs.2,78,000/- was paid to the plaintiff at various instances. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he did not receive any amount towards sale consideration of the suit property and that the first defendant, in connivance with the defendants 2 to 4, prepared sale deed dated 22.6.1993. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are aware of the revocation of power and obtained pre-dated stamp papers and got the sale deed executed in favour of defendants 2 to 4 on 18.10.1993. It is the further allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants have committed fraud on him and hence, the plaintiff after issuing advocate notice to the defendants, filed the original suit for declaring the sale deed dated 22.6.1993 as obtained by fraud and liable for cancellation and for recovery of possession of the suit property.

(3.) The first defendant denied the averments by filing written statement wherein it is contended that he was not aware of revocation of power given to him by the plaintiff and that the property is worth more than Rs.5 lakhs. In fact, the property was sold for Rs.1,40,000/- and the said fact was informed to the plaintiff in person. The first defendant denied that he played fraud on plaintiff at any stage and claimed that the alleged sale deed is true and valid and it binds all the parties.