T VELAYUTHAM Vs. NIRANJANADEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole defendant in the original suit O.S.No.5355 of 2013 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner in the present revision.

(2.) The said suit came to be filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein against the petitioner in the revision for rendition of account on the basis of a registered general power of attorney dated 06.01.1990 authorising him to manage the properties mentioned therein and sell the same. The said power of attorney came to be executed by one Subbulakshmi, the mother of the plaintiffs, and the respondents 1 to 3 herein and that while executing the said power of attorney, the mother acted for herself and as guardian of the respondents 4 and 5 who were minors at that point of time. Rendition of accounts has been sought for on the premise that three sale deeds came to be executed by the petitioner herein as an agent of the respondents herein / plaintiffs. A clear averment has also been made in paragraph 11 of the plaint to the effect that the Power of Attorney given in favour of the petitioner herein / defendant was not terminated either explicitly or impliedly and that the Power of Attorney had not come to an end by efflux of time. Based on the said averment and also based on the demand made by the respondents 4 and 5 under a lawyer's notice dated 12.06.2011 demanding rendition of accounts, the suit came to be filed by all the respondents herein for a decree directing the petitioner herein / defendant to render true and correct accounts as per the deed of Power of Attorney and to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages.

(3.) The petitioner / defendant, on appearance, filed a petition in I.A.No.8268 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for an order rejecting the plaint on the ground that the relief sought for in the suit has been barred by limitation.