The validity of the release deed, the authority of the power agent, and the purpose of the suit property were the central legal points established in the judgment.

The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The Second Appeal arises from the concurrent Judgment and Decree passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.52 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Chenglapattu to declare the Deed of Release dated 9.11.2009 registered as document No.6074 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Guduvancheery in favour of the defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants, etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

The suit schedule property is as follows:

“All that piece and parcel of land earmarked for Bus Stand in 'Arul Nagar' layout, situated at No.6, Nandhivaram Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in Survey No.440A/1A with an extent of 19227 Sq.ft., or thereabouts measuring

East to West on the Northern side – 63 feet;

East to West on the Southern side – 141 feet;

North to South on the Eastern side – 195 feet; and

North to South on the Western Side – 182 feet and bounded on

North by – 30 feet wide Road;

South by – 40 feet wide Road;

East by – Vacant land; and

West by – 30 feet wide road

within the limit of Registration Sub-District of Guduvanchery and within the limit of Kattankolathur Panchayat Union Jurisdiction.”

2. Plaintiff's case:

2.1. The plaintiff is a Registered Trust established for a upliftment of the poor by providing educational institutions and also involved in social service activities. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property which was part of a larger extent of 0.82 cents was purchased by one Nagarathinam from the legal heirs of Devaraj Naicker in the year 1957 from the said Nararathinam, one Pattammal had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 19.06.1963. Thereafter on 08.08.1984, the said Pattammal entered into an agreement of sale with one M/s.Neelan Real Estate for selling the entire extent of 0.82 cents for a total sale consideration of Rs.57,400/-, the said sum was paid in bits and pieces. The last of such payment was paid on 14.04.1986 and on such payment the entire agreed sum was paid.

2.2. Meanwhile, Pattammal had executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of U.Neelan, the proprietor of M/s.Neelan Real Estate to deal with the entire extent of 0.82 cents. The said M/s.Neelan Real Estate had purchased the lands in and around the suit schedule property and its larger extent and had started to form a lay out, in the year 1984 called 'ARUL NAGAR'. While forming the lay out portions of the property were earmarked for public utility and marked so in the approved lay out. The suit schedule property was earmarked as the bus stand. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 04.02.1997, the said M/s.Neelan Real Estate had executed the gift deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff/trust.

2.3. In the month of November 2010, the plaintiff/Trust came to learn that several strangers were moving around the suit property along with land brokers and on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant who is a son of Pattammal and who had executed as witness in the endorsement for the final payment of the sale consideration had got his sisters to execute a Release Deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property on 09.11.2009. Thereafter, on 08.03.2011, the defendant had issued a legal notice to U.Neelan that the suit property belonged to him after his mother's demise intestate. The plaintiff would submit that they had no knowledge about the demise of Pattammal at the time of execution of gift deed. Since the defendant was trying to misuse the release deed to wrongfully enter on the suit property, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the reasons mentioned above.

3. Defendant's Case:

3.1. The defendant had resisted the above suit, interalia contending that the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties since