The relief of recovery of possession sought for on the strength of Ext.A1 title is not barred by limitation.

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

This Review Petition arises out of the judgment of this Court dated 4.11.2016 in R.F.A.No.140 of 2010. The review petitioner is the additional 2nd appellant in the said appeal, which arises out of the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur dated 23.12.2009 in O.S.No.23/1992, a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 3.93 acres, comprised in Sy.No.4/1 of Madakkathara Village, covered by Ext.A1 settlement deed No.2491/74 of SRO Ollukkara dated 13.5.1974.

2. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property belongs to him, which he obtained as per Ext.A1 settlement deed No.2491/74 of SRO Ollukkara dated 13.5.1974. The 1st defendant is the father and the 2nd defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had to go abroad for advanced training and higher studies, he executed Ext.A2 power of attorney No.277/83 of SRO Ollukkara dated 18.6.1983 in favour of the 1st defendant, authorizing him to sell the plaint schedule property for sufficient consideration. By the end of 1984, the plaintiff returned to India and thereupon, he cancelled Ext.A2 power of attorney, by executing Ext.A3 cancellation deed bearing No.433/85 of SRO Ollukkara dated 28.9.1985. The defendants came to know about the cancellation of Ext.A2 power of attorney immediately after execution of Ext.A3 deed. While the plaintiff was abroad, the 1st defendant was managing the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ext.A2 power of attorney and he does not have any independent right over the said property.

3. On 25.8.1991, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant fraudulently and in violation of the trust reposed on him by the plaintiff, executed Ext.A4 document No.2697/85 of SRO Ollukkara dated 14.6.1985 on the strength of Ext.A2 power of attorney. As per the recitals in Ext.A4 document, the 1st defendant gifted the plaint schedule property to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff contended that, the 1st defendant has no power to execute a document like Ext.A4 and that, the 2nd defendant did not obtain any right over the said property on the strength of Ext.A4. Therefore, in the plaint, the plaintiff sought for a declaration that, Ext.A4 document No.2697/1985 dated 14.6.1985 of SRO Ollukkara is void ab initio, not binding upon the plaint schedule property or his right, title and interest over the said property and that, he is having absolute right, title and possession over that property. The plaintiff has also sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from taking usufructs from the plaint schedule property or interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property or executing any documents concerning the same in the name of any person other than the plaintiff or inducting strangers into the said property or committing any waste therein.

4. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has not obtained any right over the plaint schedule property as per Ext.A1 document dated 13.5.1974. The said document was never acted upon and was not intended to be acted upon. Ext.A1 document was executed only with a view to escape from the land reforms legislation, by limiting the extent of the holdings. The plaintiff has no right or possession over the plaint schedule property, which continued to be in the possession of the 1st defendant till 14.6.1985, the date on which he delivered the said property to the 2nd defendant on the strength of Ext.A4 deed. Regarding execution of Ext.A2 power of attorney dated 18.6.1983, the defendants contended that the said document was not executed for selling the plaint schedule property. In fact, the 1st defendant was asking the plaintiff to execute a gift deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour