The main legal point established in the judgment is that sale deeds executed under a power of attorney are valid, and the proper valuation of a suit seeking declaration of the sale deeds' invalidity should be under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

The plaintiff had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 07.03.1985 and from that onwards the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as an absolute owner. In the year 1989, the plaintiff made arrangements to settle at Delhi on account of his business. Hence he appointed the defendant as the general power of attorney to manage the suit properties, by a registered Power of Attorney, dated 15.05.1989. The plaintiff was under the bonafide impression that the defendant is managing the properties with due care and caution as his power agent. Hence, he did not visit the suit properties for a long time.

2. The plaintiff returned to his native place in the month of January 2002 and sought the defendant to handover the possession of the suit property and also the power deed. But the defendant gave a evasive reply. Then he came to know that the defendant himself had purchased the suit properties. Immediately, the plaintiff applied for certified copy of the power deed. The plaintiff never authorised the defendant to execute a sale deed. The plaintiff never received any consideraion from the defendant herein towards the sale of the suit property. The sale deed in favour of the defendant is vitiated by fraud. So, the sale deed cannot confer any title in favour of the defendant. The sale deeds were executed without any proper authority and the same is invalid and is a "Non-est factum" and cannot create any title in favour of the defendant. Hence the plaintiff can ignore the same and need not seek to set aside. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 06.11.2000 created by the defendant on the strength of general power of attorney is invalid and cannot create any title to the defendant and further for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession. Hence he prayed for a decree.

3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant is as follows:

The suit is not maintainable both in law and in facts. The plaintiff did not purchase the property mentioned in the plaint out of his own fund. It was purchased out of the defendants funds in the year 1985, out of the sincere gratitute towards his brother Samsudeen. The plaintiff was settled in New Delhi thirty years back and he is not aware of the sale deed. The defendant had also purchased and got a sale deed to his name to some property on the same date as the sale deed exectued in the name of the plaintiff and vendor was the same to both the sale deeds. The entire sale consideration and other incidental expenses for the execution of sale deeds was spent by the defendant only. The plaintiff did not know about the said execution and at no point of time, the plaintiff was in possesion and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant is in possession of the same on the promise of the plaintiff to execute the sale deed to the defendant at later point of time, since the sale consideration was given by the defendant. The original sale deeds have been with the defendant from the date of execution.

4. The plaintiff had planned to sell the property to third party and due to the sudden impact, the defendant had convened a panchayat in this regard and then the plaintiff had executed a general power of attorney in favour of the defendant as the defendant could not be able to purchase stamp papers on the same day and the plaintiff wanted to go back to Delhi due to his urgent business work. The plaintiff had also promised to the defendant that whenever he would be prepared for the sale deed, he would come and sign in the sale deed. The plaintiff has also given ample power to the defendant in the power deed to do anything. The plaintiff is also doing banian business and visited the suit village then and there. The defendant gave a video camera, tape recorder and other dress materials to the plaintiff whenever the defendant came from