The knowledge and actions of the plaintiffs in relation to the cancellation of the power of attorney deed and subsequent verification of the sale deed were crucial in determining the applicability of the limitation period for cancellation.

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2018 made in A.S.No. 08 of 2017 on the file of the learned Fourth Additional District Court, Erode at Bhavani (A.S.No. 24 of 2017 - Principal District Court, Erode) confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016 made in O.S. No.23 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Bhavani.)

1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2018, passed in A.S.No. 08 of 2017, on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Erode, Bhavani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016, passed in O.S. No.23 of 2010, on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani.

2. The plaintiffs who have lost in both Courts have preferred the present second appeal. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs seeking for the cancellation of the sale deed executed by the first defendant, as the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, to the second defendant on 21.04.2004, as void and unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs.

3. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the suit properties belong to them and as they were in need of money, they had approached the second defendant for loan and according to them, the second defendant insisted the plaintiffs to execute a mortgage deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of her husband, namely, the first defendant and thereby, according to the plaintiffs, they had gone to the Sub Registrar's Office and executed the documents projected by the second defendant without knowing the nature of the documents they were signing and further, according to the plaintiffs, later, developing suspicion over the conduct of the defendants, on inquiry, came to know that the second defendant had obtained a power of attorney deed from the plaintiffs in favour of the first defendant in the guise of obtaining a mortgage deed for the loan advanced and immediately, according to the plaintiffs, they reached the Sub Registrar's Office and cancelled the alleged Power of Attorney by a deed of cancellation on 14.05.2004 and thereafter, according to the plaintiffs, they had approached the second defendant to discharge the loan amount and as at that point of time, the second defendant declared that she had become the owner of the suit properties by virtue of the sale deed dated 21.01.2004, thereby according to the plaintiffs, they had verified the Encumbrance Certificate dated 31.08.2009 and came to know that the suit properties had been alienated by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and further, also came to know that the first defendant had executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Appusamy and hence, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

4. Per contra, the defendants have, in toto, disputed the abovesaid case of the plaintiffs vehemently and contended that the plaintiffs, in order to alienate the suit properties, had executed a power of attorney deed in favour of the first defendant and thereafter, based on the said power, the first defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with one Appusamy and the plaintiffs did not agree for the said amount, hence, according to the defendants, the first defendant proceeded to alienate the suit properties in favour of the second defendant, which fact is known to the plaintiffs and further, it is also pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiffs had handed over the original partition deed to them as well as the possession of the suit properties to the first defendant and further, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs, after receiving the entire sale consideration, had also issued a receipt on 24.04.2004 and therefore, the plaintiffs are very well aware of the execution of the power of attorney deed and the sale deed as above pointed out. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the relief as prayed for and further