HANAARUPAVATHI Vs. D. SANTHAKUMARI AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.09.2017 made in I.A. No. 591 of 2013 in O.S. No. 1935 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

(2.) The revision petitioner has filed the suit in O.S. No. 1935 of 2010 for the relief of declaration, that the settlement deed dated 28.06.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of her husband/ the second defendant, as null and void and for permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, the respondents filed the written statement on 26.02.2011. Subsequently, an application in I.A. No. 591 of 2013 was filed by the respondents, seeking to permit them to file additional written statement with counter claim. The revision petitioner filed counter statement, denying that the respondents are not entitled for the prayer sought in the application, since the same is barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit property, as per the sale deed registered under Document No.28/2000 dated 06.01.2000, executed by the 1st respondent through her power agent, who is the 3rd defendant in the suit. As the respondents 1 and 2 disturbed the possession of the petitioner, on 30.08.2010, the revision petitioner lodged a complaint to the police, wherein the 2nd respondent disclosed the sale deed dated 28.06.2010, stated to have been executed by the 1st respondent in his favour. It is further submitted that only then the petitioner came to know that after completing the sale with the petitioner, the 1st respondent has cancelled the power of attorney dated 14.07.1998 and has executed the sale deed dated 28.06.2010 in favour of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit on 27.10.2010 seeking the aforesaid prayer.