A. KAILASAM Vs. P. MUTHURAMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who filed the suit for specific performance of the execution of sale deed, has projected the instant second Appeal inveighing the judgement and decree dated 23.01.2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Salem, in A.S. No. 74 of 2007 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2007 recorded in O.S. No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mettur, were reversed in part allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the second defendant.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that the suit property belonged to the second defendant, who executed Ex. A.2, General Power of Attorney dated 11.9.2002 in favour of the first defendant. Based on the same, he agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ - as per Ex. A.1 dated 13.10.2003 receiving an advance of Rs. 1,75,000/ - with further condition that he had to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/ - within a period of one year. It is seen that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the second defendant had cancelled the Power of Attorney and pursuant to the order of the High Court in C.R.P. No. 1757 of 2005, he has been arrayed as a party defendant in the suit. It is not denied that the second defendant cancelled the power after execution of sale agreement between the plaintiff and first defendant in respect of the suit property. It is also seen that the second defendant, who is the owner of the property, has given an undertaking on 12.10.2002 as per Ex. A.5 by making an endorsement behind the agreement itself, to the effect that he will not cancel the power of attorney.

(3.) DESPITE service of notice, the first respondent / first defendant has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. Heard Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff and Mr. V.C. Selvasekaran, learned counsel representing the second respondent / second defendant and perused the records.