JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed on 13.03.2020 in I.A.No.21 of 2018 in O.S.NO.145 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Ponneri.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.21 of 2018 in O.S.No.145 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Ponneri on 13.03.2020.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent filed the suit in O.S.No145 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Judge Ponneri, seeking the prayer for declaration that Ratification Deed dated 19.08.2015 executed by third defendant as power agent of defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 4th defendant in respect of the schedule mentioned land and registered as document No.7897 of 2015 with SRO, Redhills is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. The schedule property i.e., the suit property are:.

(i) To an extent of 0.19.0 Ares in Survey No.192/3

(ii) To an extent of 0.23.5 Ares in Survey No.192/4 situated at Puzhal Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent has no right in these properties. These properties originally belong to one Annapoorani Ammal. She sold the properties to one Sarasa on 21.06.1982. Sarasa in turn sold the properties to petitioners 1 and 2 on 19.11.1995. Late E.Doss @ Shanmugadoss, father of respondent occupied a vacant tarisu land situates at Puzhal to create some documents. He executed Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.Gajendran to create some evidence wherein it is stated that he purchased the property measuring 1.10 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 190/1 and 190/3 from Mr. Loganathan and another. There is no such entries in encumbrance certificate with regard to this alleged purchase. He fraudulently mentioned the Survey Nos.192/3 and 192/4 referring it, as per field measurement. He cancelled this Power of Attorney by mentioning the petitioners’ survey number and stopped indicating the survey No.190/1 and 190/3. Thereafter, he executed a fresh settlement deed in favour of his son/respondent Mr. James Peter in respect of survey Nos.190/1 and 190/3. Petitioners 1 and 2 filed the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2006 for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent’s father in respect of survey Nos. 192/3 and 192/4. During the pendency of O.S.No.49/2006 Mr. James Peter converted petitioners’ property into various unapproved housing plots and sold it to various third parties. Petitioners 1 and 2 executed Power of Attorney in favour of third petitioner. Respondent and his family members fabricated various documents and induced the petitioners to enter into compromise. The respondent made the petitioners to believe that documents i.e., settlement deed executed by his mother, consent settlement deed executed by his siblings, Patta, Chitta and Adangal, un-registered letters given by Sarasa are true. There is bonafide dispute in the survey number and his father E.Doss is not the owner of property in survey Nos. 192/3 and 192/4 and Mrs.Sarasa was the owner of adjacent land in survey No.192/1 and 192/2. Believing his representation, petitioners entered into a compromise with respondent and his family members on 29.04.2013 and O.S.No.49 of 2006 was dismissed as not pressed as per the compromise on 17.06.2013.

4. Subsequently, petitioners 1 and 2 sold the property in survey Nos. 192/1 and 192/2 to the 4th petitioner on 06.09.2013. Then, the fourth petitioner applied for patta. During the patta enquiry proceedings it was revealed that:

“[a] that the property measuring an extent of 1 acre in survey numbers 192/1 and 192/2 was originally owned by Mrs. Ameena Bai and after sale transactions, the property was finally sold to Siva Visnu Nagar”.

“[b] it is true that the property measuring an extent of 1 acre and 5 cents in survey numbers 192/2 and 192/4 was originally owned by Mrs. Annapoorani Ammal and by several transactions; the