IMPORTANT POINT
A power of attorney that is not coupled with interest ceases to be valid upon the death of the principal, and any sale deeds executed after the principal's death are invalid unless the validity of the power of attorney is established.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs, in a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and injunction are the appellants herein. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial court.

3. The material facts that are necessary for deciding the above Second Appeal are as follows:-

4. The plaintiffs are the parents of one Nithyanandam, who died on 25.07.1998 in a motor accident. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant and brother of the third defendant. The said Nithyanandam was originally owning the suit property and he had appointed the first defendant as Power Agent on 31.12.1997. According to the plaintiffs, the power of attorney came to an end with the demise of their son, Nithyanandam. However, the first defendant prepared a sale deed and presented the same for registration on 31.07.1998 after the demise of Nithyanandam and also knowing fully well that Nithyanandam was not alive on that date. The defendants 2 and 3, who had purchased the property through the first defendant, would not get any title to the suit property.

5. Pending the suit, the plaint was amended to include the relief of recovery of possession of the Schedule “A” and Schedule “B” mentioned properties. The suit was therefore filed to declare the sale deeds dated 20.07.1998 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of Schedule “A” and Schedule “B” mentioned properties and for recovery of possession of Schedule “A” and Schedule “B” mentioned properties from the defendants and for consequential relief of injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

6. The first defendant filed a written statement, which is adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. According to the first defendant, the ownership of the properties, at the hands of Nithyanandam, was admitted. The power of attorney, executed in favour of the first defendant, is also admitted. However, according to the first defendant, Nithyanandam had entered into an agreement with the first defendant to sell Schedule “A” and Schedule “B” properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.82,400/- and on the same day, he had appointed the first defendant as power of attorney agent i.e., on 31.12.1997. Further, the first defendant claims that he had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.82,400/- to Nithyanandam and only because of the same, the said factum of payment of entire sale consideration, Nithyanandam has executed a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant. Thus, according to the first defendant, the said power of attorney was one coupled with interest and therefore, even if the said Nithyanandam was no more, the power of attorney would survive. According to the first defendant, the sale in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 was valid and cannot be called in question by the parents of Nithyanandam, who himself had executed the power of attorney only after receiving the entire sale consideration from the first defendant.

7. According to the first defendant, the power of attorney agent viz., himself, he received Rs.20,000/- from the second defendant on 20.04.1998 and Rs.60,000/- on 18.07.1998 from the second defendant and Rs.2,400/- from the third defendant on 20.07.1998 and in furtherance thereof, he had executed two sale deeds in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. According to the first defendant, the defendants 2 and 3 are in possession of the suit property in their own right and the parents cannot maintain the suit and hence, the suit was sought to be dismissed.

8. The trial Court held that the sale deed was executed on 20.07.1998, on which date, the Nithyanandam was alive and had admittedly executed a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant and therefore,