S. PACHAIMMAL Vs. B.SURIYA PRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sixth defendant in a suit for specific performance has come forward with this appeal challenging the decree passed therein. She has purchased the suit property after the agreement for sale that the plaintiff had entered into with defendants 1 to 4. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial court for narrative convenience.

(2.) A summary of the material facts on which the cause of action for the suit is found is provided below:

(3.) Defendants 1 to 4 remained exparte and the fifth and sixth defendant have filed separate written statements. In his written statement, the fifth defendant has pleaded that the General Power of Attorney deed dated 24.1.2005 that the defendants 1 to 4 have executed along with other owners of the property was true and valid, and acting on the powers so granted, he had executed the sale deed dated 31.1.2005 for valuable consideration. The alienee under the sale deed has been put in possession of the property. The sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff is a concoction and that the defendants 1 to 4 have not executed any such sale agreement. It is a product of collusion between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 aiming to defraud the 6th defendant of her valuable right. The possession of the property is not with the plaintiff. He had neither demolished the existing building in the suit property nor had he handed over the materials to them. He had not made any improvements. The suit is bad for non-joinder of the widow and the daughters of Gopal Naicker who are all necessary parties to the present suit.