JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2015 passed in A.S. No. 27 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 passed in O.S. No. 181 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

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

3. Suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that he is the owner of the suit properties and he had purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 19.06.1983 and after the purchase, he had put up a thatched hut and obtained service connection in his name and while so, due to family circumstances, the plaintiff left the suit village and he had been to Bihar and lived there for the past seven years and the first defendant is his aunt and accordingly, the plaintiff had permitted his aunt namely the first defendant to manage the suit properties and the plaintiff was under the impression that the first defendant has been looking after the suit properties in his absence and on coming to the village in the month of May 2010, he came to know that the first defendant had conveyed the suit properties to the second defendant and on obtaining the copy of the sale deed, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant went to the extent of saying that the plaintiff had died and that she being his mother and legal heir, conveyed the suit properties and when the plaintiff questioning about the abovesaid illegal acts of the first defendant, immediately the first defendant cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant and the plaintiff is now in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and as the plaintiff had to leave again to Bihar, he had nominated Kavitha as his power agent by way of a registered power deed dated 09.06.2010 and the defendants are attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to institute the suit against the defendants and the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff through his power agent, namely Kavitha.

5. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and further contended that the suit properties had not been properly described and further according to the second defendant, the first item of the suit properties was enjoyed by the first defendant for more than 60 years and the patta had been issued in favour of the first defendant on 31.05.2000 under Natham Land Scheme and accordingly, the first defendant had alienated the same in favour of the second defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.08.2010 and handed over the possession of the same and accordingly, the second defendant had put up a thatched house in the suit property and living with her family and the abovesaid facts are known to the plaintiff and the power agent had suppressed the same and the suit has come to be laid as if the first item of the plaint schedule properties is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not given any power to the power agent to institute the suit on his behalf and therefore, on the strength of the power deed, the power agent is not entitled to lay a suit and on that sole ground the suit is liable to be dismissed and it is only the second defendant, who is paying the tax in respect of the thatched house put up by her and the plaintiff has no cause of action and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. Exs. B1 to B4 were marked. Further, Exs. X1 and X2 and Exs. C1 and C2 were also marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and do