The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order dated 25.08.2011 made in I.A.No.55 of 2011 in O.S.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram.

2. The case of the petitioner/3rd defendant is that the suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against this petitioner along with three others for declaration of title of the suit properties in their favour and for permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiffs are that the 1st plaintiff is the wife of one deceased Kuppan and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and the 4th defendant herein are the sons and daughters of the above said deceased Kuppan and the 1st defendant Tmt.Saroja. The deceased Kuppan was the original owner of the suit schedule property and during his life time he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The patta has also issued in favour of the said Kuppan. The plaintiffs further state that the deceased Kuppan has died intestate in or about 1981 leaving behind the plaintiffs and 4th defendant herein as his legal heirs and they have succeeded to the estate and liabilities of the deceased Kuppan.

4. The further case of the plaintiffs are that the 1st defendant is the wife of the 4th defendant herein and the plaintiffs and the 4th defendant wherein jointly executed a registered power of attorney deed dated 14.06.2001 in favour of the 1st defendant and under the power deed, they have been authorizing and empowering the 1st defendant to sell the suit schedule mentioned property on behalf of the plaintiffs and the 4th defendant and directing her to pay the sale proceeds to the plaintiffs and the 4th defendant after receiving the same from the 3rd party.

5. The plaintiffs further case are that when the plaintiffs were applied the encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit schedule of property, the plaintiffs surprised and shocked to see that the 1st defendant has seemed to have executed a power of attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant on 07.02.2006. While the power was in force in favour of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs herein, colluded with the 4th defendant has executed another power of attorney deed dated 07.02.2006 in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit schedule of property. The plaintiffs further state that the power holder namely the 1st defendant have not delegating her power to any other person itself which is invalid in law. Hence, the power of attorney executed by the 1st defendant, who is the original power holder of the plaintiffs dated 07.02.2006 is not valid in law and also not binding upon the plaintiffs interest in the suit schedule of property.

6. The further case of the plaintiffs are that as per the power deed dated 07.02.2006 which was executed by the 1st defendant power agent of this plaintiff has no right to deal with the power of suit property under the guise of the said power of attorney deed executed by the 1st defendant dated 07.02.2006. Therefore, the 1st defendant has transferred the power in favour of the 2nd defendant without knowledge of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant is also not acting truly or faithfully to the expectation of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant has also not rendered any accounts to the plaintiffs till this date in respect of the suit schedule of property. Pursuant to the above power of attorney dated 07.02.2006, the 2nd defendant has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, the very same execution of sale deed is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs interest. Therefore, the sale deed dated 12.11.2007 executed in favour of the 3rd defendant would not confer any right, title over the suit properties and the said sale deed dated 12.11.2007 is invalid in law and unexercisable. Therefore, the plaintiffs have approached the learned District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram and filed the above suit