The court emphasized that the validity of the power of attorney's authority must be determined within the broader context of the property transaction and the parties' rights, remaining open to contested issues of law and fact.

ORDER :

This civil revision petition seeks to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.130 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District Court at Erode. The civil revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit.

2. O.S.No.130 of 2020 has been presented for the following reliefs:

“a. To declare that the decree passed in counter claim in O.S.No.262/2009 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode in favour of the 1^st defendant is null and void, fraudulent, collusive, invalid and not binding on the plaintiff.

b. for permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant her men, assigns, agents etc., from in any manner proceeding with or enforcing the impugned exparte counter claim decree passed in O.S.No.262 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode in EP.No.12 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode.”

There is a history behind the present suit:

3. The civil revision petitioner B.Ranushree had purchased the suit schedule mentioned property by way of a registered sale deed in Document no.513 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Erode. On the very day, she executed a power of attorney in favour of her father one T.N.Balakrishna Mudaliar. The said T.N.Balakrishna Mudaliar alienated the property in favour of one V.Vairavel and V.Sivagami by way of a registered sale deed on 15.06.2009. On coming to know about the sale, B.Renushree issued a notice to her father-T.N.Balakrishna Mudaliar, the purchasers V.Vairavel and V.Sivagami, the joint Sub Registrar, Erode and the document writer – R.Suriyamoorthy. This notice was issued on 20.10.2009. Immediately, V.Vairavel and V.Sivagami issued a reply on 22.10.2009. Soon thereafter, they presented O.S.No.262 of 2009 on the file of the District Court at Erode. This suit sought for a declaration that they are the owners of the property and for permanent injunction restraining the civil revision petitioner - B.Renushree, her power agent – T.N.Balakrishna Mudaliar, her husband - Tamiliniyan, and her new power agent - S.Suriyamoorthy from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. On being served with summons, B.Renushree as the first defendant therein presented a written statement with a counter claim seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2009 executed by her father – power of attorney in favour of the plaintiffs - Vairavel and Sivagami.Consequently, they also sought for recovery of possession.

5. In the meantime, the plaintiff in O.S.No.262 of 2009 sold the property in favour of the present plaintiff/first respondent. Therefore, the civil revision petitioner herein, as the first defendant therein, filed an application to implead the present plaintiff/purchaser as party to the proceedings. She wanted to implead him not only in the suit but also in the counter claim.

6. This application was allowed. However, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.262 of 2009 did not carry out the amendment. Therefore, the suit proceeded without the presence of the present plaintiff.

7. The suit finally came to be dismissed for default on 31.01.2013. The court decreed the counter claim. At the time of pronouncement of judgment, the learned Judge framed the following issue:

8. No finding was returned by the learned Trial Judge as regards the crucial plea that had been raised by the civil revision petitioner that the power of agent, Mr.Balakrishna Mudaliar, was not empowered to sell the property.

9. As there was a de