S BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. M CHANDIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.16 of 2016 dated 08.06.2018 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli and in the suit, the plaintiff / 1st respondent herein sought for declaration, etc. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein had filed an application in I.A.No.270 of 2018 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to examine his mother in petition mentioned house on the side of the plaintiff and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court, holding that no prejudice would be caused to other side. Challenging the same, this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) It was the case of the revision petitioner that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Rajam and the said property in turn was sold to the revision petitioner / 2nd defendant on 15.04.1996 by her Power Agent / 1st defendant in the suit, who is none other than the son of Rajam. The averments made by the plaintiff that the property was sold by her mother by way of sale deed dated 07.01.1997 and she is in possession and enjoyment of the property are absolutely false and denied. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that the plaintiff had not shown any piece of evidence to prove that a fraud has been committed regarding execution of Power of Attorney and its registration. The plaintiff, her mother and the son of Rajam/1st defendant colluded together and attempted to usurp the property from the 2nd respondent on account of inflation of the value of the property and also filed the suit against the 2nd defendant.

(3.) It was the case of the revision petitioner that he was a bonafide purchaser of the property from the Power of Attorney and had the Power of Attorney deed, purported to have been executed by the said Rajam appointing the 1st defendant as her Power Agent been a fraudulent one, she could have initiated all sort of legal proceedings against the 1st defendant and without doing so, the plaintiff had filed the suit against the 2nd defendant, seeking the relief of declaration by impleading the 1st defendant for name sake.