JOHN AMARNATH Vs. A.THAMBIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 26/3/2014 passed in OS.No.117 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, thereby allowed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

(3.) The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties plot No.47, 48, 49 were purchased by the plaintiff by the registered sale deed dtd. 17/4/2009 vide document No.2232 of 2009 from the power holder G.Selvakumar on behalf of his principal S.Senthil. Prior to the sale deed, one, P.Dharmaraj, a real estate businessman acted as power agent on behalf of his principals i.e. M/s.Alamelu and Gunasekaran who had executed power of attorney to deal with the properties admeasuring 41 cents out of 57 cents of land. The said 41 cents of land is part and parcel of the settlement deed in favour of the principals vide document No.9701 of 1989 and patta No.565. Thereafter, the power holder P.Dharmaraj along with other properties had formed layout in the name and style of Annai Nagar for the total extent of the property admeasuring 3.70 acres. The subject property plot Nos.47 to 49 are comprised in survey No.193/1A6. He had entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant. However, the defendant had committed defaults in payment of various instalments and no sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant by the said P.Dharmaraj. In fact, he caused notice on 5/4/2007 to get back the amount which was paid by the defendant. He had also given public notice in the daily newspaper 'Makkal Kural' on 24/5/2007. Therefore, the said agreement was unenforceable and the defendant cannot claim any right or title over the suit properties. Therefore, the said P.Dharmaraj had executed three different sale deeds in respect of plot No.47, 48 & 49 in favour of three different persons by the registered sale deeds. All the three purchasers had executed different power of attorney in favour of one, E.V.Saravanan to deal with the subject properties. In turn, the power holder had executed three different sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff's vendor. Thereafter, he had executed power of attorney in favour of Mr.Selvakumar and in turn, he had executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.