ORDER :

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The legal heirs of the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 151 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal. The plaintiff and his legal heirs in the suit are also the revision petitioners.

2. The second appeal is against the concurrent judgment and decree of the lower Courts in O.S. No. 151 of 2008 and A.S. No. 15 of 2015. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the dismissal of petition filed by the first petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition under Section 47 C.P.C.

3. The brief facts leading to the above Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

3.1. The husband of first appellant by name Thiru. Chelladurai filed the suit in O.S. No. 151 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 106 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 28.08.2007 as the same is invalid and null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant in the suit from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit property on the basis of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 106 of 2007. The suit is also for other consequential reliefs to direct the Sub Registrar, Palayamkottai, to cancel the power of attorney deed dated 09.06.2006 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant in the suit and for cancelling the registration of sale agreement dated 09.01.2006 and the registration of the sale deed dated 02.07.2008 based on the decree in O.S. No. 106 of 2007.

3.2. The suit property is a house-site plot and building bearing Door No. 25A in Krishnankovil Mela Theru comprised in Town Survey No. 1037 in Ward No. 23 of Tirunelveli Corporation. There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that he approached the first defendant in the suit for a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to improve his business and that under the pretext of getting a mortgage as a security for the loan, the first defendant and his brother in law, the second defendant called the plaintiff to the Registrar Office and fraudulently obtained a power of attorney deed in favour of the first defendant and received the original title deed from the plaintiff. It is his further case that without knowing the fraudulent transaction, the plaintiff was paying interest at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The plaintiff stated that he let out the houses to his own son and put him in possession of the property as tenant and moved to Chennai. It is also the case of the plaintiff that on 03.03.2007, the first defendant told him to pay interest to the second defendant. Thereafter, he came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 have fraudulently obtained a power of attorney deed and executed a registered sale agreement on 09.06.2006. The plaintiff stated that he also came to know thereafter that the second defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 106 of 2007 for specific performance of an agreement and obtained an ex parte decree fraudulently by getting a decree in his name by showing the first defendant as plaintiff's power of attorney agent to represent the plaintiff in the suit. It is also admitted that based on the ex parte decree, an execution petition was filed in E.P. No. 45 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and the second defendant obtained a sale deed through Court. Describing every transactions namely the power of attorney deed, sale agreement, ex parte decree and the subsequent sale deed through Court as fraudulent, the plaintiff submitted that the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 106 of 2007 was obtained by playing fraud and collusion. It is stated that an obstruction petition was filed in the Execution Petition and delivery of property is yet to be taken. The suit was contested by the first defendant and second defendant independently. It is to be noted that both the defendants 1 and 2 hav