1. The present application has been filed by the applicant / defendant to reject the plaint in C.S.No.480 of 2011.

2. The applicant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the civil suit.

4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the following reliefs:-

(i) Declaring the title of the plaintiff to the suit property;

(ii) Directing the defendant to remove the super structure and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff;

(iii) Directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit.

5. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

(a) The suit property originally belonged to one Moulavan. He died leaving behind his legal heirs Parasuraman and seven others. The said Parasuraman and seven others had executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 7.5.1981 in favour of one Ramasamy. The said Ramasamy executed a registered sale deed dated 4.11.1988 in favour of one R.P.Natarajan and his mother on behalf of the said Parasuraman and seven others, thereby conveyed their right, title and interest in the suit property absolutely in favour of the said R.P.Natarajan and his mother. The said R.P.Natarajan and his mother had agreed to convey their title in the suit property to the plaintiff by an agreement dated 22.3.2010. The sale transaction between the plaintiff and the said R.P.Natarajan and his mother was completed on 21.6.2011 by a registered sale deed.

(b) After purchase, when the plaintiff visited the property in the third week of June, 2011, he found that a construction work was being carried on in the suit property. Upon enquiry, to his shock and surprise, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant herein is putting up construction claiming that she is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff, upon enquiry, came to know that the defendant had obtained a sale deed from one Sambasivam on 18.1.2002. The said Sambasivam had claimed that he is the power agent of the legal heirs of Parasuraman, Nagappan and his children. The said deed of power of attorney appears to have been executed in the year 1999. On the strength of the said power of attorney executed by the legal heirs of Parasuraman, Nagappan and his children, the said Sambasivam had sold the suit property in favour of the defendant herein on 18.1.2002. The plaintiff suspects that the defendant in collusion with the said Sambasivam, had created power of attorney as well as the sale deed in her favour. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the reliefs stated supra.

6. On appearance, the defendant has filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The sum and substance of the affidavit filed in support of the said application, in brief, is as follows:-

(a) The defendant is the absolute owner of the land bearing Plot No.164, situated in Survey No.303/1 at Annai Indira Nagar, Velacherry, Chennai-42 measuring to an extent of 3044 sq.ft., having purchased the same from one P.Bakyavathi, wife of late Parasuraman and his legal heirs, M.Nagappan, brother of deceased Parasuraman and the sons and daughter of Nagappan, through their power agent by name R.Sambasivam under a registered sale deed dated 18.1.2002.

(b) Before purchase of the suit property, the husband of the defendant went to the office of the Sub Registrar of Saidapet and Velacherry to verify whether there was any encumbrance on the suit property upto the date of purchase. After knowing that there was no encumbrance on the suit property and after obtaining Encumbrance Certificate from 1974 till date of purchase, the first defendant purchased the suit property for a valuable sale consideration and the first defendant is the bona fide purchaser of the suit property.

(c) The plaintiff claims to be the purchaser of the suit property from one R.P.Natarajan and his mother alleging that they were the owners of