This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 28. 1995 made in O.S.No.221 of 1994 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The second defendant is the appellant.

.2. The first respondent herein filed the suit seeking for a judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,83,400/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for costs of the suit.

.The case of the plaintiff is that the second defendant, as a power of attorney of first defendant, has entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 6. 1992 to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and on the date of the sale agreement, the second defendant received advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and further agreed to complete the sale within three months, failing which, he agreed to repay the advance amount in double and the plaintiff has to lose the advance amount if the default is on his part. It is further stated by the plaintiff that he made several efforts by approaching the second defendant to register the sale deed and that efforts became fruitless and the plaintiff came to know that the suit property belonged to one Kokilambal and she had executed a settlement deed on 11. 1979 in favour of S.P.Poyyathappan alias Appan and Manoranjithammal and the defendants 1 and 2 have no right over the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant, without any title or right over the suit property, executed a power deed in favour of second defendant in respect of the suit property and in turn, the second defendant executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the act of the defendants amounts to cheat the plaintiff and the plaintiff issued lawyers notice on 22. 1994 and though the defendants received the notice, they did not send any reply or repaid the advance amount and hence the suit.

3. The first defendant remained absent and was set exparte.

4. The second defendant, in his written statement, has admitted that he, as power of attorney of the first defendant, entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 6. 1992 and agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, but has denied that he received advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-and agreed to complete the sale agreement within three months and he has further denied the plaint averment that the plaintiff has made several efforts to get the sale deed registered and they became fruitless. The second defendant has also denied the plaint averment that the suit property belonged to one Kokilambal who had executed a settlement deed in favour of two persons and the defendants have no right over the suit property. According to the second defendant, the first defendant executed the power deed in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property and in turn, he executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and according to him, he never personally received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance and he acted only on the direction of the first defendant and within the scope of the power deed executed by the first defendant. The second defendant has further denied that the act of the defendants amounts to cheat the plaintiff. It is further stated by the second defendant that the sale agreement was entered into by him only on behalf of the first defendant and not in any of his personal capacity and he has not received any consideration from the plaintiff and therefore he is not having any personal liability in the sale agreement and it will not bind the second defendant personally.

5. The trial court framed eight issues and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 on his side and the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no document was marked on their side. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the second defendant is also liable along with the first defendant for the suit claim and granted a decree