LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-723

S ELANGOVAN Vs. RAJA

Decided On July 16, 2018
S ELANGOVAN Appellant
V/S
RAJA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2017 made in A.S.No.43 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Arakkonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2015 made in O.S.No.244 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff who is unsuccessful in both the Courts below has come out with the present Second Appeal. The appellant filed suit O.S.No.244 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam against the respondents/defendants for declaration of title, consequential injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for a declaration to declare the sale deed dated 25.04.2007, bearing document number 9482/2007 executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent as null and void.

(3.) The second respondent filed written statement, which was adopted by the first respondent and denied all the averments. According to the respondents, unilateral cancellation of Power of Attorney by Kasturi was not valid. No notice was given to the first respondent before cancellation. The sale in favour of the second respondent by the first respondent as Power of Attorney is valid. The Power of Attorney executed by Kasturi and Natarajan is valid and legal. On the date of execution of Power of Attorney by Natarajan and Kasturi, they received entire sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- and executed letter dated 204.2003 on a Non-Judicial Stamp paper acknowledging the receipt of said sum of Rs. 70,000/-. The Power of Attorney is coupled with interest. Cancellation without notice is not valid. The said Kasturi and Natarajan handed over the possession of the suit property. The first respondent was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in his capacity as Power Agent of the said Kasturi. From the date of purchase vide the sale deed dated 25.04.2007, the second respondent is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by constructing a house.