The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to establish their case, and the defendants must prove the genuineness of the evidence presented.

1. This Second appeal is focused by the defendants animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2011 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, in A.S.No.144 of 2009, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2009 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Alandur, in O.S.No.404 of 1998, which was one for declaration.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. Pendente lite the original plaintiff-Padmanabhan died and his L.Rs. were impleaded as plaintiffs.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(a) The original deceased plaintiff, namely, Padmanabhan, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"to declare that the sale deed registered as document No.961 of 1997 dated 11.4.1997 with regard to the suit schedule property, executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, is a fraudulent transaction in view of the revocation of the power given to the first defendant by the plaintiff by document deed 9.4.1997 and thereby would not be binding on the plaintiff;

(b) for cost of the suit."

(extracted as such)

(b) The gist and kernel of the plaint averments would run thus:

(i) There emerged an agreement to sell (Ex.A3) between the plaintiff-Padmanabhan and D2-Muthumani-the husband of D1, in respect of the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint; Whereby, the former agreed to sell in favour of the latter the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,05,000/-(rupees two lakhs five thousand) and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees lakhs) was paid by the proposed purchaser(D2) to the owner of the land, namely, the original plaintiff-Padmanabhan. Time stipulated for performance was ten months.

(ii) It so happened that on the date of emergence of the agreement to sell (Ex.A3 dated 7.8.1995) itself a Power of Attorney (Ex.A2 dated 7.8.1995) was executed by the said Padmanabhan in favour of D1-Rajeswari (wife of Muthumani-D1).

(iii) Subsequently D2 committed default in performing his part of the contract, whereupon, the plaintiff revoked the Power Deed executed by him on 7.8.1995, by the registered revocation deed 9.4.1997 (Ex.A1), and the same was communicated by registered post to D1, which was received by her on 11.4.1997 itself; however, fraudulently, the sale deed was subsequently executed by D1 in favour of her husbandD2 and got it registered in the Pammal Sub-Registration Office, which had no jurisdiction to get such sale deed registered.

Accordingly, the plaintiff would pray for decreeing the suit.

(c) Oppugning and impugning, challenging and refuting the averments/allegation in the plaint, D2 filed the written statement, which was adopted by D1, the warp and woof of the averments in the written statement would run thus:

(i) Suppressing the material facts, the plaint was filed.

(ii) After the emergence of the agreement to sell(Ex.A3) as well as the Power Deed (Ex.A2), a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) was paid by D2 through D1 to the plaintiff on 20.3.1997.

(iii) The alleged cancellation of the power deed was communicated to D1 only after the registration of the sale deed-Ex.A4 dated 11.4.1997. Without assigning any reason, the Power Deed was cancelled.

Accordingly, the defendants would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

(d) Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the original plaintiff-Padmanabhan examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2-the second plaintiff(wife of P1) and marked Exs.A1 to A10. The second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked on the defendants' side.

(e) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed by the plaintiffs, whereupon, the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgment