Sale of property by power of attorney holder without approval of owner set aside.

Second Appeal No.1080 of 1998 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1996 rendered in A.S.No.27 of 1994 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, thereby dismissing the Appeal without costs and confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1993 rendered in O.S.No.353 of 1989 by the Court of District Munsif, Harur.

2. Tracing the history of the above Second Appeal coming to be preferred by the defendants in the suit, it comes to be known that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction, on averments such as that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff by way of the sale deed dated 23.8.1989 and the said property was purchased from one Venkataraman, who got the power deed from the 1st defendant; that ever since, the plaintiff, being in possession, is cultivating the same; that the defendants have no right in the same, but the 1st defendant asked the plaintiff to quit the suit property since he has to cancel the power deed; that since the plaintiff refused, the 1st defendant and his men attempted to enter into the suit property forcibly. Hence the suit for declaration and injunction.

3. On the contrary, the defendants in their written statement would state that it is false to say that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff; that he is not a bonafide purchaser for value; that possession was not given to the plaintiff; that the suit property is the ancestral property allotted to the 1st defendant by way of partition; that the 1st defendant executed a general power deed in favour of one Venkataraman, who is his brother and father-in-law of the plaintiff; that since Venkataraman has not handed over the accounts, the 1st defendant sent a notice on 24.8.1989 to him stating that he would cancel the power deed from 7.9.1989; that with a view to misuse his power and to cheat the 1st defendant, Venkataraman prepared a sale deed showing that the suit property is sold in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.48,000/- and that sale deed is not yet completed by the Registration Department; that in the meantime the power deed was cancelled, that the 1st defendant is in possession of the suit property, that since the plaintiff and Venkataraman attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.115 of 1990 and obtained an injunction and it is still in force; that since the sale deed is a forged one, the plaintiff has no right; that there is no cause of action; that since Venkataraman has sold his own property, viz., S.No.12/6c measuring 1872 sq.feet for Rs.7,000/- ,it is clear that it is not true that the suit property was sold only for Rs.48,000/-. On such averments, the defendants would pray to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. On such pleadings by parties, the trial court would frame the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the suit, viz., (i) Whether the plaintiff has no right in the suit property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of title? (iii) Whether the suit property is not in possession of the plaintiff? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction? And (v) What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?

5. Second Appeal No.1081 of 1998 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1993 rendered in A.S.No.34 of 1994 by the court of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri thereby dismissing the appeal without costs and confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1993 rendered in O.S.No.115 of 1990 by the Court of District Munsif, Harur.

6. Tracing the history of the above Second Appeal coming to be preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, it comes to be known that the appellant herein as the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction, on averments such as that the suit property was the ancestral one and it was allotted to the plaintiff by way of oral partition and it is in his possession; that the defendants have no