JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2008 passed in O.S. No. 333 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bhavani, the second defendant has preferred the appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for declaration and possession.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the first defendant is the elder brother's son of the second defendant and the plaintiff purchased item No. 1 of the suit properties by virtue of the sale deed dated 09.03.1998 and item No. 2 of the suit properties by virtue of the sale deed dated 21.01.2000 and the second item was purchased as a vacant site and thereafter, the plaintiff had put up the construction and built five houses therein and the plaintiff is a barber by caste and regularly bidding in auction for human hair obtained on tonsure in Hindu temples and selling such hair after cleaning it and in order to meet out the necessary expenditure in the family and for the business, he borrowed amounts from the creditors and as required by the creditors, executed sale agreements as well as power of attorney deeds in favour of the creditors and the plaintiff subsequently discharged the said debts and cancelled the abovesaid deeds. On 24.04.1998, the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from one Gurusamy Gounder and entered into the sale agreement with him with regard to item No. 1 of the suit properties as recited therein and the said agreement was executed as a security for the loan and the said Gurusamy Gounder is none other than the brother of the second defendant and on 12.04.1999, the abovesaid sale agreement was cancelled after discharging the debt with interest by way of the registered instrument. On 12.04.1999, the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the second defendant and entered into a sale agreement with him with regard to item No. 1 of the suit properties as recited therein. The abovesaid sale agreement was intended as a security for the loan abovestated and on 27.04.2001, the period of sale agreement was extended for a further period of six months and on that day, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the second defendant and on 11.10.2001, the abovesaid sale agreement and the deed of extension of time were cancelled after discharging the debt by way of a registered instrument and on 11.10.2001, the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the first defendant and entered into a sale agreement with regard to item No. 1 of the suit properties as recited therein and the abovesaid sale agreement was also discharged by a registered deed of cancellation dated 23.09.2002. On 23.09.2002, the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the second defendant and executed a power of attorney regarding item No. 1 of the suit properties as required by the second defendant appointing the second defendant as his power agent and handed over the original documents and the plaintiff paid the entire loan amount to the second defendant and at that time, the second defendant returned the original registered power of attorney deed to the plaintiff. In the meantime, on 17.12.2002, the second defendant, as the power agent of the plaintiff, entered into the sale agreement with the first defendant and in the said agreement, it was recited that the sale consideration was Rs. 3,00,000/-, advance amount Rs. 25,000/- and the period of performance was two years and subsequently, on 13.06.2003, the defendants 1 and 2 cancelled the abovesaid sale agreement by way of the registered instrument. On 13.03.2000, the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from Anthiyur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., along with his wives Subbulakshmi and Jayalakshmi and daughter Radhamani by pledging item No. 2 of the suit properties and executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the society and as per the terms of the mortgage, the debt