SAKUNTHALA Vs. ANANDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the learned District Munsif, Alandur in allowing the application filed by the 5th defendant in the suit under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the proof affidavit filed by the Power Agent of the plaintiff, Mrs. Sakunthala.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of a contract of sale stated to have been entered orally on 20. 04. 1994 and for a direction against the defendants to execute and register sale deed after receiving the additional sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and also for permanent injunction. The defendants have filed written statement denying categorically that no contract or oral agreement was entered on 20. 04. 1994 to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. Further, the fixation of sale price at Rs. 15,000/- is also denied. However, the defendants have stated that they have given power in favour of the 4th defendant, who, on his behalf and as power of attorney agent, sold the land in favour of one Sabeena Beevi. It is the definite case of the defendants in the written statement that the plaintiff has set up her brother Ramalingam to claim as if a sale agreement was entered into on 20. 04. 1994. It is the further case of the defendants in the written statement that Ramalingam, the brother of the plaintiff approached the defendants and insisted them to sell the property and it is the said Ramalingam, who has set up the plaintiff to issue notice.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the plaintiff was permitted to appear through her brother Ramalingam as her power agent. It is also not in dispute that the said power was given to the said Ramalingam after the plaintiff was examined in chief partly. When the said Ramalingam was intended to give evidence about the alleged oral agreement dated 20. 04. 1994 between the plaintiff and the defendants, the 5th defendant has filed an application in I. A. No. 2776 of 2006 as stated above for rejecting the proof affidavit filed by the power of attorney agent of the plaintiff Mrs. Sakuntha. The said application was filed on the basis that the power agent of the plaintiff cannot be allowed to speak about the oral agreement for sale stated to have been executed between the plaintiff and the defendants on 20. 04. 1994. Further, it was the case of the 5th defendant that when the suit was filed on 20. 04. 1995 based on the oral agreement, the power stated to have been given by the plaintiff to her brother Ramalingam is of the year 2003 and therefore, the power of attorney cannot be expected to speak about the contract stated to have been entered seven years prior to the power executed.