IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing lawful possession and discharge of obligations in property disputes, as well as the relevance of challenging relevant documents in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree in A.S. No.11 of 2016 dated 12.12.2017 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.53 of 2011 dated 31.08.2015 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tirukoilur.)

1. The plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction having succeeded before the trial Court and having suffered a reversal finding before the First Appellate Court, is the appellant herein.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The material facts that are necessary to decide the present Second Appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff sought for the relief of permanent injunction. It is the specific case that the property was originally owned by one Ramakrishnan, who had mortgaged the property on 16.02.1998 for borrowing a sum of Rs.31,000/-; the said Ramakrishnan has appointed one Krishnamoorthy as his power agent; on 30.06.2006, the said power agent sold the suit property to the second defendant on 03.07.2006; the second defendant having purchased the suit property executed a power of attorney in favour of first defendant on 27.07.2009 and the first defendant thereafter, as agent of the second defendant, sold the suit property to the plaintiff; the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and since there was an attempt to interfere with his possession, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the relief of bare injunction.

5. The suit was resisted by the 2nd defendant on the ground that the 2nd defendant was in possession and he had executed the power of attorney in favour of the first defendant, only as a security for a sum of Rs.47,000/-, alleged to have been borrowed by him. Therefore, the said power of attorney was a sham and nominal document and the sale deed executed by the power agent, viz., first defendant in favour of the plaintiff was invalid. According to the 2nd defendant, he was in possession of the suit property and it is further contended that suit for bare injunction was not maintainable, without a relief of declaration.

6. Before the trial Court, the first defendant remained exparte. The trial Court, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, found that the plaintiff was in possession and decreed the suit as prayed for. However on Appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

7. Aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal. On 26.06.2018, the above Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(a) Whether the first Appellate Court is right in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court when admittedly the 2nd defendant has executed power of attorney deed in favour of 1st defendant and on the basis of the same, the 1st defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiff under Ex.A5?

b) Whether the Court below is right in giving findings regarding validity of the documents and that too in respect of Ex.A5 sale deed in favour of plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction?”

8. I have heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the first respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the plaintiff has established valid purchase of the suit property and admittedly, the 2nd defendant had admitted to the execution of the power of attorney in favour of the first defendant and it is not open to him to claim that the said power of attorney was sham and nominal. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would also state that despite filing of the suit, the second defendant has not chosen to challenge the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant would also state that by production of patt