Agents may execute sale deeds within their authority; failure to set aside such deeds results in enforceability. Remedies against breaches of power are financial rather than reclaiming properties.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated April 16, 2019 passed in A.S.No.64 of 2018 by the 'Subordinate Court, Ulundurpet' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated July 20, 2015 passed in O.S.No.35 of 2010 by the 'Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE

3. The Suit Properties are ancestral properties in which the plaintiffs hold joint ownership rights. Due to family circumstances, the plaintiffs were unable to personally manage the properties. Hence, on July 29, 2002 they executed a registered 'General Power of Attorney' ('G.P.A.' for brevity) in favour of the second defendant, authorizing him to manage the Suit Properties on their behalf. Acting as their agent under the said G.P.A., the second defendant administered the properties. However, the second defendant fraudulently executed Sale Deeds dated July 30, 2003 and June 19, 2007 in favour of the first defendant in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Suit Properties respectively, that too without consideration, behind the back of the plaintiffs, only with a view to defeat and defraud the legitimate rights of the plaintiffs. This came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only on November 1, 2009. Upon learning the same, the plaintiffs revoked the G.P.A. on November 10, 2009. Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the defendants and attempted to reclaim the properties through mediation by community elders, but the defendants refused. Consequently, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice on December 14, 2009, demanding return of the Suit Properties. The defendants, upon receiving the notice on January 2, 2010, responded with a reply notice denying the plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the Original Suit praying for a decree of declaration of title and recovery of possession.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant. In the written statement, it is averred that the Suit filed by the plaintiffs is legally unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. It is averred that, the Suit Properties originally belonged to Muthulingam and others, which were later allocated to Muthulingam through a Family Partition as his share. Upon Muthulingam's demise, the plaintiffs, as his legal heirs, took possession of the Suit Properties and executed the registered G.P.A. in favour of the second defendant. At the time of executing the G.P.A., the plaintiffs received consideration from the second defendant in the presence of witnesses. Pursuant to the authority granted under the G.P.A., the second defendant took possession of the Suit Properties and subsequently sold them to the first defendant through valid Sale Deeds for consideration. From then on, the first defendant is enjoying the absolute ownership of the Suit Properties and the plaintiffs no longer have ownership rights over the properties following these transactions. Furthermore, the plaintiffs cannot unilaterally revoke / cancel the G.P.A., without prior notice to the second defendant. Alleged Revocation / Cancellation Deed is invalid and has no legal validity. The plaintiffs have filed the present Suit with the ulterior motive of gaining