S.KANAKARAJ Vs. S.RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike down the plaint in O.S.No.191 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet.

(2.) The petitioners are defendants, the respondent is plaintiff. The respondent who is the brother of first petitioner and brother-in-law of second petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.191 of 2014 for partition, separate possession and to declare the sale deed dated 14.11.2003 executed by second petitioner in favour of first petitioner as null and void.

(3.) The respondent in the suit has stated that he is the younger brother of first petitioner and both of them have purchased the suit property from their father Sakthivel by the deed of sale dated 29.06.1993. From that date onwards, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After purchase, they demolished the old building and put up new construction and let out the same to various third parties for rent. The respondent is residing in a room in the second floor alongwith his family. He was collecting the rent from the tenants and sharing the same with the first petitioner. On 30.06.2013, the petitioners informed the respondent that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties and the respondent has no right and created problem with the respondent. The respondent lodged a complaint with Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station. The respondent came to know about the fraudulent general Power of Attorney obtained by the second petitioner from the respondent and sale deed executed by the second petitioner in favour of the first petitioner. He also gave complaint to the Land Grabbing Cell, Tirupur. The respondent did not execute any general Power of Attorney in favour of the second petitioner. Having come to know about the fraudulent Power of Attorney, cancelled the same by deed of cancellation on 22.09.2014. The respondent sent a notice on 02.12.2009 through his counsel to the petitioners. The respondent filed suit for partition and declaration as petitioners have played fraud on the respondent.