The main legal point established in the judgment is the validation of the power of attorney (Ex.B1) and the implications of its validity on the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to expunge the remarks regarding Ex.B1 in the judgment dated 06.06.2006 in AS.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem, so faras it relates to the findings that Ex.B1 power of attorney deed is a forged document and to expunge the direction to initiate prosecution against the first petitioner herein.

1. This second appeal is filed to expunge the remarks regarding Ex.B1 in the judgment dated 06.06.2006 in AS.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem, so faras it relates to the findings that Ex.B1 power of attorney deed is a forged document and to expunge the direction to initiate prosecution against the first appellant herein.

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

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

3.1. The suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff had purchased house site at New Fairlands, Salem town vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.1978. Thereafter she raised funds from house loan and also with the help of her husband, she has constructed a terraced building, which is the suit property. She also had purchased another house site at Alagapuram Kattur, Salem. Her sister Lakshmi was given in marriage to one, Palanivelu who is the brother of the plaintiff's husband Marimuthu. Since plaintiff's brother was settled at USA, the plaintiff's sister and her husband went to USA during the year 1980. While being so, her sister and her husband used to send their savings to the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff has purchased the house at Narasothipatti Village, Salem-4 in the name of her sister's husband namely Palanivelu. Thereafter, the plaintiff also shifted her family to USA. There was misunderstanding between the plaintiff and her sister's family and as such her sister's husband demanded accounts for the amount sent to the plaintiff. On compulsion, the plaintiff agreed to part her valuable house site at Alagapuram Kattur to her sister's husband, namely Palanivelu. The said Palanivelu also purchased vacant house site at New Fairlands and he proposed to put up construction over there. Therefore the plaintiff was insisted to give power of attorney to his sister's son namely the first defendant. Thereafter the said Palanivelu also had given power of attorney in favour of the first defendant to sell his house site which was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of Palanivelu. Accordingly, the first defendant sold out both the house sites and constructed building at New Fairlands for the said Palanivelu. Thereafter, the plaintiff went to USA and settled there. In order to maintain the suit property, she had executed power of attorney in favour of one, R.Palanisami. While being so, on 25.08.1995, the said Palanivelu and his men threatened the plaintiff and by threat he obtained few signatures on the blank papers in order to knock away the suit property. In fact, the plaintiff also reported the matter to the Police. Thereafter, again the plaintiff executed power of attorney in favour of the said K.Palanisami in respect of the suit property on 26.06.1996. Thereafter, the first defendant with the hands of the Palanivelu fabricated power of attorney in his favour and executed sale deed in favour of the second defendant, who is none other than a close relative of the first defendant and the said Palanivelu. When the power of attorney of the plaintiff was verified with the encumbrance certificate, she came to understand that on the strength of the power of attorney, the suit property was sold out in favour of the second defendant. Hence, the suit.

4. Resisting the plaintiff's case, the first defendant filed written statement and stated that the first defendant had absolutely no knowledge about the dispute between the plaintiff and the said Palanivelu. The plaintiff purchased the suit property by the