This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.622 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein, for the relief of cancellation of a registered Sale Deed, dated 09.04.2007, executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 2nd appellant. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 26.06.2010. A.S.No.435 of 2010 filed by the appellants herein in the Court of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, was dismissed on 31.07.2012. Hence, this Second Appeal.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

The facts, that are relevant for the purpose of the second appeal, are as under:

The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of the 3rd defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The partition in the family, comprising of the 3rd defendant and his four sons including the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, has taken place in the year 1985. The suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff. Claiming to be the Power of Attorney of the plaintiff, his father, the 3rd defendant, executed a Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of his grand-son, the 2nd defendant-son of the 1st defendant, on 09.04.2007.

The plaintiff pleaded that since he was residing at Hyderabad, he intended to alienate the suit schedule property and, in fact, entered into an agreement with one Mr. Gorikapudi Bujji Babu for a consideration of Rs.19,00,000/-, but the same was cancelled through notice, dated 07.04.2007, on account of the default committed by the proposed purchaser. He pleaded that when he was trying to alienate the property, the 1st defendant got issued a notice on 13.01.2007, alleging that he i.e., the plaintiff, entered into an agreement with him to sell the property, on 31.03.2007, and in that behalf, notices and replies were exchanged. He pleaded that the 1st defendant, who is the eldest brother, clandestinely obtained the Sale Deed in favour of his son, the 2nd defendant, by pressurizing and playing fraud upon the 3rd defendant, their father.

The suit was opposed by the 1st defendant, by filing a written statement. He pleaded that though the partition took place among the four brothers, their father, the 3rd defendant, obtained General Power of Attorney from all the sons in the year 1985 itself to ensure that in the event of any quarrels arising among his sons, he can settle the same amiably. He contends that the plaintiff has created a delicate situation in the family, by executing agreements in favour of various persons, and with a view to protect reputation to the family, the 3rd defendant has executed the Sale Deed.

The 3rd defendant filed a written statement, stating, inter alia, that the Sale Deed in question was obtained from him, without furnishing proper information and exerting pressure upon him. He pleaded that taking advantage of his old age and helplessness, the 1st defendant brought the Sale Deed into existence.

The trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal preferred by the defendants 1 and 2 was dismissed.

Sri C. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 and 2, submits that the 3rd defendant has changed his stand obviously on being won over by the plaintiff and the trial Court and the lower appellate Court failed to notice the collusion between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. He contends that once a Sale Deed is executed by the General Power of Attorney, it is equally binding upon the principal and the only remedy available to the principal is to sue his Power of Attorney, and that the Sale Deed executed by the latter cannot be set aside.

The facts, in brief, that gave rise to the filing of the second appeal, have already been furnished in the preceding paragraphs. The suit was filed for the relief of cancellation of a Sale Deed, dated 09.04.2007, and for perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule pro