JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated 14.06.2016 made in A.S.No.98 of 2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 11.11.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, in O.S.No.117 of 2006.)

1. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in A.S. No. 98 of 2009, in and by which the learned Judge had confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, in O.S. No. 117 of 2006. The facts which are considered necessary to dispose of the above Second Appeal is alluded to herein below. The parties to the lis are referred to in the same rank as before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.117 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, seeking the relief of a declaration and recovery of possession from the 1st defendant and for damages. She had come to the Court contending that the suit property belonged absolutely to the 2nd defendant. On 01.09.2005, the 2nd defendant had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Kuppa Goundar son of Narayana Goundar, who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff. On 14.09.2005, Kuppa Goundar as power agent of the 2nd defendant had sold the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The suit property is part of a larger extent of 5.67 Acres, comprised in survey No.210 of Kattu Edayar Village, Rishivendiyam, Kalakuruchi, Villupuram District.

3. It was also the plaintiff’s case that the 1st defendant had desired to purchase the suit property and having failed in his attempt to do so, he had instigated the 2nd defendant to cancel the power that he had given to Kuppa Goundar. It appears that on 17.11.2005, the power given to Kuppa Goundar was canceled by the 2nd defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff and her husband were served with the caveat which was filed by the 1st defendant. After filing the caveat the 1st defendant had forcibly taken possession of the suit property and had refused to vacate the same. Therefore, left with no other alternative the plaintiff has come forward with the above suit.

4. This suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the 1st defendant inter alia contending that the total extent of 5.67 acres together with a Well, 5 H.P. Motor and pump-sets was the ancestral property of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was permanently residing at Chennai and therefore, he had leased out the lands to the 1st defendant long ago. On 04.06.2001, the 1st defendant had purchased an extent of 1 acre out of this 5.67 acres within specified boundaries. He had got the revenue records mutated in his name. On 04.06.2001, the 2nd defendant had executed a Will bequeathing the remaining extent of 4.67 acres along with other lands belonging to the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.

5. While so, Kuppa Goundar, the plaintiff’s husband who was fully aware of all these transactions had approached the 2nd defendant and obtained a power in his name in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, making use of the said power, Kuppa Goundar had alienated the property to his wife, the plaintiff. The power of attorney and the sale deed are not valid documents and the plaintiff is bound to prove the same. It was also the case of the 1st defendant that the plaintiff has never in possession and enjoyment of any portion of the property and it was always the 1st defendant who was enjoying the land since he has been a lessee in respect of the same for several years. The 2nd defendant had thereafter, sold the extent of 4.67 acres to the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed dated 29.11.2005. Therefore, the 1st defendant was the absolute owner and in possession of the entire extent of 5