LOGANATHAN Vs. KALIAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Court of Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Judge I, Coimbatore, made in I. A. No. 34 of 2003 in O. S. No. 187 of 2002 dated 10-2-2003 dismissing the amendment petition filed under Or. 6 R. 17 C. P. C. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts necessitated for disposal of this revision petition could briefly be stated thus:-The suit property relates to site Nos. 17 to 22, 24 and 25 surrounded by the boundaries stated in the plaint schedule. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff has purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 30-5-1994. The suit property assumed importance as the same was developed as a residential area. The first Defendant is a close relative of the Plaintiff, who has offered help to the Plaintiff to develop the suit land. Hence, the Plaintiff has entrusted the work to the first Defendant and executed a general Power of Attorney on 15-7-1994 empowering the first Defendant to divide the land into house sites getting an approval from the Town Planning Authorities. For a long time the first Defendant did not effect any sale deed nor had done any development work. He has also stopped communicating with the Plaintiff regarding further developments. Hence, the Plaintiff has cancelled the Power of Attorney (dated 15-7-1994) given in favour of the first Defendant by a deed of cancellation dated 9-7-1997. The factum of cancellation of Power of Attorney was also informed to the first Defendant. However, the first Defendant has created two sale deeds dated 15-7-1997 one in favour of his son, the second Defendant and another in favour of his daughter-in-law, the third Defendant, as if, the second Defendant had purchased the site Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 and the third Defendant had purchased the site Nos. 21, 22, 24 and 25. Both the sale deeds are fraudulent and collusive creations by the Defendants and they are not binding on the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for:- (a)ordering cancellation of the two sale deeds dated 15-7-1997 in favour of Defendants 2 and 3 executed by the first Defendant ; (b)directing the Defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff and alternatively, directing the first Defendant to account for the sale price in respect of the suit property and other reliefs.

(3.) DENYING the averments in the plaint, the Defendants 2 and 3 have filed the written statement on 16-7-2001. The first Defendant has filed the written statement on 14-12-2002. In the written statement of the first Defendant, it is inter-alia pleaded that on 18-3-1997 the first Defendant had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the second Defendant for selling the house site Nos. 17 to 22, 24, 25, 26 and 28 for a sale price of Rs. 6,55,000/ -. Pursuant to the agreement of sale, two sale deeds were executed in favour of the Defendants 2 and 3 on 14-7-1997 and 15-7-1997. The second Defendant purchased site Nos. 21, 22, 24 and 25, under the sale deed dated 15-7-1997, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,44,500/- and under the sale deed dated 14-7-1997 in favour of the third Defendant the site Nos. 26 and 28 were sold for the sale consideration of Rs. 1,47,000/ -. According to the Defendants, the first Defendant has made several improvements in the suit properties, for which, he had spent huge amounts; that apart title deeds of the first Defendant were also given as security for the Plaintiff for availing the loan from T. I. I. C. The first Defendant was looking after the Plaintiff as his own son. The Plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 2,76,951. 50 to the first Defendant, being the expenses incurred for formation and promotion of the lay out. In the counter statement filed by the first Defendant, he has made a counter claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- payable by the Plaintiff.