JUDGMENT :

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 27.03.1998, passed in A.S.No.31 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Court cum Chief Judicial Magsitrate, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.1994, passed in O.S.No.104 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai.

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant herein had filed O.S.No.104 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Devakottai, for declaration and recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Challenging the concurrent findings, the appellant is before this Court.

3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property which was originally a vacant site belonged to the second respondent herein. The second respondent entered into a sale agreement with his father on 11.06.1991 under Exhibit A3, agreeing to sell the suit property to him for a sale consideration of Rs.16,000/- and also received the entire sale consideration. The second respondent also executed a power deed in favour of the appellant's father under Exhibit A2 on 11.06.1991. The appellant/plaintiff also claimed that the power deed executed by the second respondent is irrevocable one as it was executed after receiving the entire sale consideration. It was further averred that the power agent of second respondent, namely, the father of the appellant in his capacity as an agent of second respondent executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellant on 21.06.1992 and the same was registered on 23.07.1992. The appellant had also stated that the first respondent herein claiming right under the second respondent tried to interfere with his possession. Therefore, he was constrained to file a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaint was subsequently amended for the relief of recovery of possession instead of relief of injunction on the ground that, the first respondent trespassed into the suit property pending suit and put up construction.

4. The first respondent herein had filed a written statement and resisted the suit and the same was adopted by the second respondent. The suit was mainly resisted by the respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that, the power deed in favour of the father of the appellant was cancelled by the second respondent under Exhibit B12, dated 08.07.1992. It was also stated by the respondents that on 08.07.1992, the second respondent sold the suit property to the first respondent and hence, the first respondent is the absolute owner of the suit property. The respondents also denied the sale agreement produced by the appellant in favour of his father under Exhibit A3. The respondents specifically raised a plea that subsequent to the cancellation of the power deed under Exhibit B8, the power agent of second defendant, namely, the father of the plaintiff was not entitled to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant.

5. Before the trial Court, the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and four other witnesses were examined on his behalf as P.W.1 to P.W.5. Exhibits A1 to A18 were marked on behalf of the appellant. The first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and his vendor, namely, the second defendant was examined as D.W.3. One another independent witness was examined as D.W.2. The respondents marked Exhibits B1 to B14 on their behalf.

6. The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant under Exhibit A1, dated 21.06.1992, by the power agent of second respondent was not valid as it was executed subsequent to cancellation of power deed by the second respondent. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the appellant had filed first appeal in A.S.No.31 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Co