JUDGMENT :

Prayer :- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2005, in A.S.No.82 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, reversing the decree and judgment dated 04.10.2004 in O.S.No.82 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode.

This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2005, in A.S.No.82 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, reversing the decree and judgment dated 04.10.2004 in O.S.No.82 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode.

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

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :-

3.1. The suit is filed for permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. She has been residing in a portion of the building as widow and in the remaining portions her tenants have been in occupation and she has been receiving the rent from the tenants. She further submitted that her son by name Natarajan is living at Kongampalayam and he is not looking after the plaintiff. The first defendant is the close relative of the plaintiff. He is running a power loom factory at Pallipalayam and he used to visit the plaintiff on account of her old age. The defendants 2 and 3 are strangers to the plaintiff and they are friends of the first defendant. While being so, the first defendant along with the third defendant and another one, Senthil on 08.01.2000 entered into her house and kidnapped her to the house of the first defendant, wherein she was illegally detained for three days and on threatening and coercion with dire consequences on her life and property, the defendants obtained her left thumb impression on several blank paper and stamp papers. She was severely beaten up by them. Hence, she lodged a complaint and thereafter the defendants 1 and 3 were arrested in a criminal case.

3.2 Further averred that the defendants 1 and 3 fabricated the documents of their choice utilising her left thumb impression obtained under coercion and threatening from the plaintiff. She also stated that she would take appropriate steps against the defendants 1 and 3 as and when the matter came to light as to how the defendants 1 and 3 have utilised the signatures obtained on stamp papers. Thereafter, the defendants have frequently visited the plaintiff's house and threatened her to dispossess from the suit property. The plaintiff never executed any sale deed in favour of the defendants and never intended to sign any document of transfer in favour of the defendants. Hence, she filed suit for permanent injunction as against the defendants.

4. Resisting the plaintiff's case, the defendants filed written statement stating that the son of the plaintiff never looked after her and she had to be helped only by the first defendant. After knowing these facts, the plaintiff executed a registered power of attorney dated 09.01.2001 in favour of the third defendant authorising him to sell the property. Since she was not able to go to the Registrar Office often to sell the property, and the third defendant being the power agent executed two sale deeds on 10.01.2001. One sale deed was executed in favour of the first defendant and another sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant, who is none other than the daughter of the first defendant for valid sale consideration. The third defendant settled the entire sale consideration to the plaintiff. Therefore, on her own, the plaintiff had sold the entire suit schedule property in favour of the first and second defendants herein and the third defendant acted as power agent of the plaintiff. Only on the instigation of the son of the plaintiff. He lodged false complaint on 13.01.2001 against the Will of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never intended to lodge any complaint as against the defendants. Further the publi