The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mandatory notice for the cancellation of a power of attorney deed, and the court's emphasis on the passing of title without the necessity of payment of price.

In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2013 on the file of Subordinate court, Mettur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2013 passed in O.S. No.108 of 2008, on the file of District Munsif Court, Mettur.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the plaintiffs 2 and 4 are the daughters and Plaintiffs 3 and 5 are the sons of the first plaintiff. The suit property belongs to the plaintiffs and in respect of the entire extent of 0.0622.0 square metres in suit survey number, based on the possession and title of the first plaintiff's husband Venkata Reddy, patta has been issued in his favour by the revenue authorities and the Plaintiffs 1,3 and 5 sold about 1747.5 square feet of the same to one Mani, wife of Thangavel by way of a registered sale deed dated 21.09.2004 and they are the absolute owners and in possession and enjoyment of the suit property described in the plaint and Venkata Reddy died intestate on 30.10.2004 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and thereby the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit property as the legal heirs of the deceased Venkata Reddy. During his life time, Venkata Reddy and his wife Ellammal, the first plaintiff, his sons Nagarajan and Ravi, the plaintiffs 3 and 5 executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the first defendant on 04.07.2004 and later Venkata Reddy fell ill and was bed ridden and accordingly the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 5 had sold the extent of 1747.5 square feet to one Mani as above stated and from the date of the said sale, it is only Mani who is in possession and enjoyment of the said extent purchased by her. The performance of the first defendant was not satisfactory and so Venkata Reddy, his wife, the first plaintiff and his sons, the plaintiffs 3 and 5 have cancelled the registered power of attorney deed date 04.07.2004 in favour of the first defendant by way of a registered cancellation deed dated 19.10.2004 and in the meanwhile, the first defendant, in order to grab the property of the plaintiffs fraudulently, without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs, has falsely executed a registered sale agreement dated 04.10.2004 with his wife, the second defendant, in respect of the same and not informed about any such transaction either to Venkata Reddy or to the plaintiffs and further without any right, the first defendant had also sold about 4065 square feet in the suit survey number to the second defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 27.10.2004 which has been effected after the cancellation of the registered power of attorney deed and the defendants have no right, title or possession of the suit property at any point of time and the above said document had been created by the defendants fraudulently and without any right. The defendants had never been in the possession of the suit property and the sale deed dated 27.10.2004 was not acted upon. The defendants 1 and 2, in collusion with the third defendant, fraudulently created another sale deed dated 20.03.2008 in favour of the third defendant and further the defendants have no right over the suit property. In fact, the plaintiffs wanted to obtain loan from the bank and while so, they applied for encumbrance certificate from the Sub registrar office and on receiving the same, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants had fraudulently created the above said sale agreement and the sale deeds executed against the interest of the plaintiffs and without any right and hence according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, after denying all the allegations contained in the plaint put forth the case that the patta had been granted in favour of Venkata Reddy, the first plaintiff's husband, however, denied the