JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial Court the present appeal suit has been filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:-

The suit property belongs to the defendant and it is divided into 155 plots. The defendant, who is living in a far away place appointed her sister namely, Bhagavath Geetha as power agent by a registered deed dated 01.10.1997. The said power agent entered into an agreement of sale on 24.01.2006 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule properties for a total consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as an advance towards the sale consideration on the same date. The balance of Rs. 3,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within a period of 18 months. The possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but neither the power agent nor the defendant herein had not come forward to execute the sale agreement. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 10.01.2007 to the defendant and her power agent. The notice was replied only by the defendant on 12.02.2007 stating that she had executed a power of attorney on 01.10.1997 in favour of her sister and she did not inform about the sale agreement and also the power deed was cancelled on 10.04.2006, since the power agent failed in her duties. She further stated that several survey numbers mentioned in the notice are not covered under the power of attorney deed. Hence, the suit.

(ii) The plaintiff states that the plot numbers mentioned and the corresponding survey numbers have been mentioned correctly in the sale agreement, but two survey numbers in Survey Nos. 1014 and 106 had been mentioned in the sale agreement inadvertently. However, the above survey numbers have been omitted in this suit.

(iii) Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W. 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were marked and on the side of the defendant D.W.1 was examined and Exs. B1 and B2 were marked.

4. It is the contention of the defendant that the power agent had not entered into an agreement on 24.01.2006 or any other date agreeing to sell the suit properties for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- and she did not receive any advance amount. As the power agent has not complied her duties, the defendant cancelled the power deed in favour of the power agent on 10.04.2006. At the time of cancelling the power of attorney, thorough verification was done by the defendant as to whether there are any existing agreement or deeds, but the defendant found nothing. Aggrieved over the cancellation of power deed, the sister of the defendant has come forward with the plaintiff in order to cheat and revenge the defendant. The alleged agreement of sale dated 21.01.2006 is created after the cancellation of the power deed by the defendant by anti-dating the document. It is further submitted that the possession of the property was never shifted to the plaintiff.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 24.01.2006 is true, valid and genuine?

2) Whether the plaintiff has paid to the defendant's agent Rs. 6,00,000/- as advance sale consideration?

3) Whether the defendant is bound by the sale agreement dated 24.01.2006?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought for?

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. The agreement under Ex. A2 is anti-dated and it was created only to knock out the properties of the appellant, who is residing at Trivandr