JUDGMENT :

The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.66 of 2014 by the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul and in A.S.No.3 of 2017, on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. Originally, one Kalaimani as plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2013 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and also to declare the sale deed, dated 16.04.2009 of the first respondent herein in respect of the suit property as null and void, wherein, the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that originally the suit property belonged to one Rajamaniammal, wife of late.S.P.Renganatha Mudaliar. One Sukumaran, who is the son of the said Rajamaniammal, had obtained loan in the second respondent/the Punjab National Bank by depositing the title deed of the suit property as security for the loan. The said fact was not known to the plaintiff. However, without disclosing the said depositing of title on the suit property as a security for the loan obtained from the second respondent, the said Sukumaran executed a power of attorney in favour of the husband of the plaintiff viz., Palanisamy in respect of the suit property on 29.06.2005. Further, an affidavit was also sworn in by the said Sukumaran, which was attested by the Notary Public, dated 01.10.2005, to the effect that the original title of the suit property had been stolen. Subsequently, on 29.03.2006, the said Palanisamy had sold the suit property to his wife, namely, Kalaimani, the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the first defendant came to the suit property on 20.09.2013 with his henchmen and informed that he has purchased the suit property and handed over the copy of the sale certificate and ex-parte preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.445 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dindigul. Subsequently, on 24.01.2014, a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff and on 10.02.2014, the first respondent issued a reply notice in contrary to the real facts. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the above stated relief.

5. The first defendant had filed a written statement and stated that the suit property originally owned by Rajamani Ammal. Her son, Sukumaran, who is running M/s.Abirami Textiles, had obtained loan from the second defendant by depositing the title deeds of the suit property. Later, the said Sukumaran executed a power of attorney in favour of the husband of the plaintiff viz., Palanisamy, who in turn had sold the same to his wife, the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser and the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant, dated 16.04.2009 is valid under law. On 14.09.2000, the said Sukumaran had obtained a loan from the second defendant Bank for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by depositing the title deed of the suit property. Due to the non-payment of the loan amount, the second defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.445 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dindigul, wherein, a preliminary decree was passed on 01.07.2003 in favour of the second defendant Bank for a sum of Rs.6,41,348.42/- with interest as on 22.09.2006. In the said suit, Sukumaran and Rajamaniammal were shown as parties. The second defendant Bank conducted a public auction of the suit property and the first respondent was issued with sale certificate, dated 16.04.2009 and possession was handed over and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was marked.

7. On the basis of the rival pleadings made on either side, the trial Court, after framing necessary i