JUDGMENT :

The first defendant in the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that defendants 1 to 3 purchased the suit property from one K.S. Sabarinathan through his power agent on 11/02/1997 under a registered sale deed. Later, they jointly executed a general power of attorney deed on 10/09/2003 in favour of the second plaintiff and got it registered on 18/09/2003. The defendants received the entire sale consideration from the 2nd plaintiff and handed over the title documents and possession of the property.

3. Since the defendants on execution of the power of attorney received the entire sale consideration and handed over the possession, it is a power coupled with interest. The plaintiffs on obtaining the power improved the property and tried to fetch third party buyers, but he could not, since the property had no proper access to the main road. Hence, he sold the property on 05/07/2004 to the first plaintiff, who is none other his wife. On the transfer of the title, the first plaintiff has mutated the revenue records and transferred the EB service in her name and enjoying the property absolutely. While the fact being so, during the month of January 2006, the first defendant started intimidating the plaintiffs demanding money in view of the hike in real estate price. Apprehending trouble, the plaintiffs gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore on 06/02/2006 and the first defendant was called for enquiry by Mambalam Police on 09/02/2006. In the enquiry, the first defendant gave an undertaking that he will not trouble the plaintiffs. However, after four years, he gave similar complaint before Mangadu Police Station and only during the enquiry by Mangadu Police on 17/05/2010, the first defendant, for the first time disclosed the fact that he unilaterally cancelled the power of attorney and got it registered on 12/12/2003. This was never brought to the notice of the plaintiffs anytime before 17/05/2010.

4. The power of attorney executed by all three defendants cannot be cancelled by the first defendant alone unilaterally without notice, that too after getting consideration for executing the power deed. The said cancellation deed dated 07/12/2003 is written on a stamp paper purchased on 12/12/2003. This will clearly show that the cancellation of the power deed by the first defendant and his threat to cause disturbance to the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs is only to extract money illegally. Hence, the suit seeking declaration of title over the suit property and consequential permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 3 and also to declare the unilateral cancellation of power of attorney dated 07/12/2003 and registered on 12/12/2003 as null and void.

5. The contra case of the first defendant is that, the suit is laid by the plaintiffs in collusion with other defendants 2 and 3. No consideration was passed, while executing the power deed. The father of the second plaintiff was known to the defendants for nearly 20 years. The contract to construct a compound wall in the land measuring to an extent of 1.62 acres at Chrompet owned by the defendants was entrusted to the father of the second plaintiff. The contract was for Rs.5,00,000/- therefore, as a security for payment, the title deed of the suit property was entrusted to the second plaintiff’s father. Also power of attorney was given to the second plaintiff to fetch buyer and sell the suit property on their behalf. No consideration received for executing the power of attorney deed. However, the second plaintiff after getting the power of attoney in his name started deceiving the first defendant in collusion with the other defendants, hence, the power of attorney was cancelled on 12/12/2003 and duly intimated to the plaintiffs through certificate of postings and he sought for return of the original documents from the second plaintiff. Instead of returning the document, the second plaintiff had created