The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Power of Attorney was executed as a security for a loan and the sale deed was executed without consideration, making it void.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 97 r/w Order 41 R 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri and allow the appeal.)

A. The Appeal Suit:

1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the aggrieved defendants against the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2013 in O.S.No.92 of 2011, in and by which, the Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration of their title in respect of the suit schedule property; for recovery of possession; for permanent injunction not to interfere with the possession or creating any encumbrance; for cancelling the Power of Attorney, dated 15.08.2007 executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant; for declaring that the sale deed, dated 05.09.2008 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

B. The Pleadings:

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the above reliefs contending that the plaintiffs had mortgaged the suit property at Krishnagiri Co-operative Housing Society on 22.02.1999 after obtaining a loan of Rs.2,50,000/-. On 29.04.2004, a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was also obtained. Since the plaintiffs could not repay the loan on account of their financial crisis, during the period of January, 2008 to June, 2008, the said society and its staff exerted pressure on the plaintiffs to pay the said entire amount of Rs.4,50,000/- immediately. In order to save the suit property, the plaintiffs approached the first defendant for loan of the said sum of Rs.4,50,000/- outstanding to the society. The first defendant insisted that the plaintiffs should sign and hand over three empty N.J.S papers and also execute General Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant in respect of the property. Accordingly a power of attorney was registered on 15/07/2008 and the possession of suit property was also handed over to the first defendant. It was also agreed that a sum of Rs.2/- per Rs.100/- per month has to be paid as interest. It was further agreed that the first defendant will cancel the Power of Attorney and hand over the possession of the suit property as well as the N.J.S papers upon repayment of the loan. The plaintiffs were paying the interest of Rs.9,000/- per month and the plaintiffs had promised to settle the principle amount within two years period. However, when the plaintiffs approached the defendants on 15.08.2010 with a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and requested the defendants to receive the same and cancel the Power of Attorney, the first defendant refused to receive the amount and showed the copy of the sale deed, dated 05.09.2008 that the first defendant sold the property to the second defendant. The worth of the property was more than Rs.13,00,000/- and just by paying Rs.4,50,000/- as loan, the defendants are trying to knock off the suit property. No sale consideration was paid for registering the sale deed and the defendants are threatening the plaintiffs with their supporters and rowdy elements. Since the defendants are also trying to further alienate the suit property, the suit was filed.

C. The Written Statement:

3. The defendants filed a common written statement. They denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs wanted to sell the suit property to settle the debts incurred by them and therefore, they came forward to register a General Power of Attorney, dated 15.08.2007 authorising the first defendant to execute sale document or any type of document for transferring the title to intended buyers of the suit property. Accordingly, the first defendant approached the second defendant to purchase the suit property. In fact, the first defendant handed over the copy of the document relating to the suit pr