JUDGMENT :

N. SESHASAYEE, J.

1. This appeal is preferred challenging a decree rejecting the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) & (d) of C.P.C. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

2.1. The admitted position is that the suit property belongs to the first defendant ever since he was a minor. He has since become a citizen of Malaysia. According to the plaintiffs, on 30.12.1998, the first defendant had executed a Power of Attorney in Malaysia in favour of a certain Masilamani, and on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property under a sale deed, dated 13.07.2006. At the relevant time when the plaintiffs purchased the property, it was under the occupation of certain Ashok Kumar and the plaintiffs has obtained possession from Ashok Kumar. Notwithstanding the fact that the aforesaid sale in favour of the plaintiffs, on 24.03.2010, the first defendant executed a settlement deed pertaining to the suit property in favour of the second defendant, and the second defendant in turn executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the third defendant. Once the plaintiffs had come to know that the first defendant was still dealing with the suit property despite the sale in their favour, they chose to institute a suit for declaration of their title over the suit property.

2.2.Before launching the present litigation, the plaintiffs tried to establish that the Power of Attorney in favour of Masilamani was genuine at least thrice before the Malaccan Court at Malaysia. The details thereof are:

a) A suit in 22NCVC-201/2015. The plaintiffs withdrew that suit on 03.07.2015.

b) 22NCVC-39-08/2015. On 27.04.2016, they withdrew this suit as well. This time, the Court slapped cost on them. However, it granted leave to the plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit.

c) Lastly, they filed a suit in 22NCVC-53-10/2016. In this suit, the trial had commenced before the Malaccan Court. When the trial was in its advance stage, the plaintiffs herein moved the Malaysian Court for withdrawal of the civil suit as well. Vide order dated 20.06.2017, the Court allowed it too but slapped a higher cost on the appellants this time and it did not grant any relief to the plaintiffs to institute any fresh suit on the cause of action.

2.3. Before the third suit the plaintiff had laid before the Malaccan Court was allowed to be withdrawn by the said Court, to be precise, on 15.06.2017, the plaintiffs had laid the present suit for declaration of his title. It may be added that earlier, the plaintiffs had laid O.S.No.52 of 2012 for damages for the malicious prosecution against the State and also the defendants herein. On 09.02.2018, that suit came to be dismissed for default.

3. It is in this setting, the defendants took out an application for rejection of plaint in I.A.No.375 of 2017 and the trial Court held that the present suit cannot be sustained in law since according to it, the plaintiffs cannot challenge a Power of Attorney executed in Malaysia before Indian Court.This decree of the trial Court is now under challenge in this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that establishing issuance of the two Power of Attorneys involved in this case is a matter for evidence. After all a suit for declaration of plaintiffs’ title to a property falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court, and the same cannot be agitated before the Malaysian Court. And whether the Power of Attorney which Masilamani is said to have obtained from the first defendant is genuine is essentially a matter for proof and that will decide whether the first defendant continued to have any right over the suit property for him to deal with subsequent to the purchase mad