JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree passed on 11.12.2012 in O.S.No.404 of 2007 by the Hon'ble Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu.)

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed in O.S.No.404 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Court, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, the plaintiffs have preferred the first 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 recovery of possession.

4. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs' case, they along with Kuppusamy Naicker, since deceased and Kothandapani Naicker, since deceased had executed a deed of general power of attorney on 31.10.1987, nominating the first defendant as their power agent empowering him to sell the suit property and according to the plaintiffs, the first principal Kuppusamy Naicker died on 22.08.1992 and the fifth principal Kothandapani Naicker died on 12.12.1990 and the same was intimated by the other principals, namely, the plaintiffs and on the death of the two persons, the joint power of attorney executed on 31.10.1987 had become ineffective and unenforceable and the plaintiffs have informed the first defendant that he should not act upon the aforesaid power of attorney and the first defendant had also assured that he would not act as the agent under the abovesaid power of attorney. However, when the plaintiffs thereafter applied for the encumbrance certificate found that the first defendant had sold the suit property to the second defendant by way of the sale deed dated 03.04.2006 and shocked and pained by the act of the first defendant, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 16.04.2007 intimating that the aforesaid sale deed is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs also called upon the defendants to cancel the sale deed and hand over the possession of the suit property. The reply notice has been issued by the first defendant on 19.04.2007 contending that he had paid the entire sale consideration and he became the agent coupled with interest and also with other untenable allegations. The first defendant has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the second defendant in his capacity as the power agent of the plaintiffs and the abovesaid deceased persons. The power of attorney executed in favour of the first defendant ceases to be in force after the demise of the two principals and the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant and the same is not binding on them and the second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser and hence, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The first defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit admitting the execution of the power of attorney deed in his favour by the plaintiffs and Kuppusamy Naicker and Kothandapani Naicker on 31.10.1987 and according to him, on 31.10.1987, the plaintiffs and the deceased Chinnasamy Naicker and Ramasamy Naicker, the owners of the suit property entered into an agreement of sale dated 01.10.1987 with the first defendant to sell the suit properties for a sum of Rs.72,000/- and received Rs.20,000/- as advance on the date of the sale agreement and thereafter, on 31.10.1987 received the entire balance sale consideration and made an endorsement in the sale agreement stating that they had received the entire sale consideration in full and final settlement and had declared that they had surrendered all their rights, title and interest of the property in favour of the first defendant and in addition to that, they had also executed a power of attorney on the same date empowering the first defendant to deal with the property in any manner and suppressing the execution of the sale agreement entered into between the parties as aforestated, according to the first de