C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

C.S. No. 247 of 2010 has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendants :-

(a) declaring that the sale deed dated 31.12.2009, executed by the 3rd Defendant in favour of the 1st Defendant by the 2nd Defendant as Power of Attorney of the 3rd Defendant and registered as Document No.4118 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Kodambakkam, is null and void and consequently, granting mandatory injunction, directing the 3rd Defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff and hand over vacant possession in respect of the suit property, including the parent title deeds in original.

or

directing the 1st Defendant to execute a deed of reconveyance in favour of the Plaintiff and handover vacant possession in respect of the suit property to the Plaintiff including the parent tile deeds in original.

(b) directing the Defendants to repay a sum of Rs.11,40,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and forty thousand only) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation.

(c) directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to repay the sum of Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs only).

(d) Directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to pay mesne profits to the Plaintiff at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per month from the date of the plaint till the date of handing over of possession.

(e) directing the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

2. C.S. No. 593 of 2010 has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendants :-

(a) declaring that the Power of Attorney dated 5.2.2010 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 2nd Defendant for the property bearing Door No.41B, Pasumarathi Street, Rangarajapuram, Chennai-44, more fully described in the schedule, has been executed under threat and coercion and therefore, the same is void and not binding on the Plaintiff.

(b) declaring that the sale agreement dated 5.2.2010 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Defendant for the property bearing Door No.41B, Pasumarathi Street, Rangarajapuram, Chennai-44, more fully described in the schedule, has been executed under threat and coercion and therefore, the same is void and not binding on the Plaintiff.

(c) granting mandatory injunction directing the 1st Defendant to return the original title deed, namely, Document No.4118 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kodambakkam, for the property bearing Door No.41B, Pasumarathi Street, Rangarajapuram, Chennai-44, more fully described in the schedule.

(d) granting permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the 1st Defendant from alienating or encumbering or otherwise dealing with the property, namely, house property bearing Door No.41B, Pasumarathi Street, Rangarajapuram, Chennai-44, more fully described in the schedule.

3. Plaint in C.S. No. 247 of 2010 :-

a. The Plaintiff is a Malaysian National and a person of Indian origin, involved in various business activities in Malaysia, owning various companies, of which some are, WARIS, BUMI, GAJAH Sdn-Bhd and Asia Communication and Electronics Sdn-Bhd. The 2nd Defendant is the Plaintiff's sister's son. The 1st Defendant is the wife of the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff had incorporated a Company in Malaysia in 1994 called Phoenix Technology Corporation Private Limited. This was also incorporated in India at Bangalore. The brother of the 2nd Defendant was appointed as Director of the said Company. The 2nd Defendant was appointed as Branch Incharge for the Branch Office, which was opened at Chennai. The suit property being house, ground and premises, bearing Door No.41/B, Pasumarthy Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai, measuring about one ground and 21 sq.ft. with building erected to an extent of 1700 sq.ft. consisting of ground floor of 800 sq.ft. and first floor of about 900 sq.ft. was stated by the Plaintiff to have been taken on lease by M/s. Phoenix Technology Corporation Private Limited to be used as a guest house.

b. The Plaintiff had retained a room in the