The plaintiff's lawful ownership and entitlement to recovery of possession were established, and the defendants' possession was found to be unlawful.

JUDGMENT :

(Rmt. Teekaa Raman, P.B. Balaji, J.) :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014 in O.S.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant before us. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2011, before the Additional District Court, Dindigul for declaring its title to the suit property and for consequential relief for recovery of possession from the defendants and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the encroachments and superstructures put up in the suit property.

2.(i). The brief facts of the case pleaded by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 22.05.1982. In the year 1996, the second defendant, who is the husband of the first defendant, approached the plaintiff's Company with an offer to find a suitable purchaser for the suit property or in the alternative, purchase it for himself, for a price to be agreed later. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant advanced a sum of Rs.47,00,000/- and it was agreed that the said amount would be adjusted at the time of final settlement of the sale transaction. In view of the payment of Rs.47,00,000/-, the plaintiff executed a power of attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant's wife, namely, the first defendant on 10.10.1996.

2(ii). The plaintiff also issued receipts in the name of the first defendant, in respect of the money received from the second defendant. Thereafter, the second defendant did not come forward to finalise the sale transaction and also expressed his inability to purchase the said property and also informed the same to the plaintiff, over phone and the plaintiff returned the advance amount of Rs.47,00,000/- by way of five demand drafts, dated 07.04.2000 drawn on “Bank of India”, Madurai, favouring the second defendant.

2(iii) According to the plaintiff, the said demand drafts were sent by registered post to the second defendant, along with a covering letter, confirming that the transaction had fallen-through. In the said letter it was also mentioned that in view of the transaction not being proceeded with, the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant also came to an end. According to the plaintiff, the said communication along with the demand drafts was received by the second defendant.

2.(iv). It is further contended by the plaintiff that despite receiving the said sum of Rs.47,00,000/- and also the information that the power of attorney came to an end, the defendants colluded among themselves and brought about an agreement of sale on 10.04.2000 to defeat the plaintiff's right. It is the specific allegation of the plaintiff that only after getting knowledge about the cancellation of power of attorney and the same being informed to the second defendant on 07.04.2000, the defendants have created the documents, as if the third defendant has made payment of sale consideration in advance, on 01.11.1996, 22.07.1998, 16.12.1999 and finally on the date of the alleged agreement, i.e., 10.04.2000. A suit was also filed by the third defendant in O.S.No.148 of 2000 and all these attempts were made by the defendants only to grab the suit property.

2.(v). The plaintiff has further stated that on 26.04.2000, the defendants entered in another agreement of sale, whereunder, it is mentioned that possession of the suit property has been handed over to the third defendant and that the third defendant was permitted to fence the property and also develop the same. The third defendant obtained an interim order in O.S.No.148 of 2000, despite not being put in possession by the defendants 1 and 2 who themselves were not in actual possession. Even otherwise, it was only after getting the ex parte order, the third defendant attempted to enter into the suit