The court affirmed that a valid power of attorney authorizes the sale of property, and possession follows title, dismissing claims of forgery and invalidity.

JUDGMENT :

A.S.No.39 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order of the Trial Court in O.S.No.72 of 2019 dated 06.07.2021 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.

A.S.No.40 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order of the Trial Court in O.S.No.42 of 2017 dated 06.07.2021 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.

2. The suit in O.S.No.42 of 2017 has been filed by the appellant seeking for cancellation of the power of attorney dated 09.07.2012, sale deed dated 27.04.2017 and for permanent injunction.

3. The suit in O.S.No.72 of 2019 has been filed by the second defendant in O.S.No.42 of 2017 for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The brief background of the case in O.S.No.42 of 2017 is as follows:

4.a. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is a vacant site. Plaintiff has purchased the vacant land and is the owner of the property. In order to met out the expenses of business of her husband, the plaintiff and her husband approached one Govindaraj for a loan of Rs.3 lakhs. Govindaraj introduced the first defendant who is doing finance business. The first defendant has agreed to lend the amount and the plaintiff executed a general power of attorney dated 09.07.2012 in favour of the first defendant. Two blank promissory notes were obtained by the first defendant. Only during the 3^rd week of October, 2017, when the defendants attempted to disturb the peaceful possession, the plaintiff came to know that based on the power of attorney, the first defendant on the strength of the power of attorney has executed the sale deed in favour of the second defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs and the same was registered on 27.04.2017. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant has no right to sell the property as per the terms of the power of attorney. The plaintiff is still continuing the possession of the property. Life certificate enclosed with the sale deed is a result of fraud and forgery. Hence, the suit.

4.b. It is the case of the defendants that there was no loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants and in fact, the plaintiff has approached the first defendant on 09.07.2012 and requested him in selling the property and the first defendant was appointed as Power of Attorney. Only in pursuant to the power of attorney, sale deed was executed in favour of the second defendant. She is a bonafide purchaser of the property and she is in possession of the property.

4.c. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief that the General Power of Attorney dated: 09.07.2012 is null and void and not acted upon?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of Sale Deed dated: 27.04.2017?

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants for not to alienate the suit property?

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to disturb the plaintiff's possession over the suit property?

6. To what other relief?

5. The brief background of the case in O.S.No.72 of 2019 is as follows:

5.a. The second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.42 of 2017, who is the purchaser of the suit property has filed the suit seeking for permanent injuction as against the plaintiff in O.S.No.42 of 2017.

5.b. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

a. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

b. To what other relief?

O.S.No.42 of 2017

6. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined and no documents were marked.

O.S.No.72 of 2019

7. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendant, none examined a