K. CHITRADEVI Vs. OYYAPAAN @ SONAI SAMBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Second Appeals have been filed against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 12/3/2025 made in A.S. Nos. 56 to 58 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Melur, which confirmed the Judgment and Decree in O.S. Nos. 72, 81 and 82 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, dtd. 28/8/2017, respectively.

(2.) I have heard Mr. C. Vakeeswaran, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. R. Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting first respondent. I have also gone through the records placed before me by way of a typed set of papers, as well as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants.

(3.) The plaintiffs are the appellants in these Second Appeals. Having unsuccessfully sought the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective properties belonging to the plaintiffs, these appeals have been filed. The case of the plaintiffs in the respective suits is that they are bona fide purchasers for value, of plots in an approved layout and that the original owners, namely the first defendant and two others, had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Mr. N. Subramanian on 31/10/1990, and that the plaintiffs purchased the suit properties from the said power agent who represented the owners, including the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, they were put in possession, and since the first defendant started interfering with their possession, the suits came to be filed. The suits were resisted by the first defendant, contending that the power of attorney was not executed by him and that the lands continued to be in his possession and enjoyment. The sisters of the first defendant, namely defendants 2 and 3, were also arrayed as parties to the suits. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court negatived the claims of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suits for permanent injunction.