A sale deed executed after the cancellation of a power of attorney is invalid under the Power of Attorney Act, reinforcing the principle that authority must exist for legitimate transfer of property rights.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.21 of 2012, on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, dated 21.12.2012, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010 made in O.S.No.234 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court at Salem.

2. The defendants are the appellants against whom the plaintiffs have filed a suit to declare that the sale deed dated 31.07.2006 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the second defendant vide document No.1539 of 2006 and the sale deed dated 11.10.2006 executed by the second defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant vide document No.2200 of 2006 are sham, nominal, fraudulent, invalid documents, and for consequential injunction. The trial Court has dismissed the suit. On the first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court allowed the first appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and the suit was decreed. Now, the defendants have preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court.

3. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as under:

The suit properties belonged to the 1st plaintiff through purchase by virtue of a sale deed dated 17.04.1997; from then onwards the plaintiffs and their children were in enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs are illiterates. The second plaintiff is the wife of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant is known to the plaintiffs and came into contact while repairing his tractor. The 1st defendant has to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiffs towards the tractor's service charges. But the 1st defendant has not paid the same. The 1st defendant obtained signatures of the 1st plaintiff in an unfilled promissory note and in unfilled stamp paper in the year 1997. He had also got a power of attorney in respect of other property that belonged to the plaintiffs to an extent of 3600 sq.ft. Since the 1st defendant used to threaten the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had paid more than Rs.1.36 lakhs from the years 1997 to 2000 to the 1st defendant.

3.1. The 1st defendant, by misusing the power of attorney deed dated 18.09.2000, executed a sale deed in favour of Balasubramaniam and Sengottaiyan. The said Balasubramaniam and Sengottaiyan are the sons of the 1st defendant. Hence, the plaintiffs have given a police complaint. Thereafter, the 1st defendant has entered into a sale agreement with the 2nd defendant, Sellappan, on 04.08.2003. The time for execution of sale agreement is one year;even after the completion of the agreement, the same was not acted upon.

3.2. The plaintiffs cancelled the general power of attorney deed in favour of the 1^st defendant by virtue of a cancellation deed dated 29.03.2006 and the notice of cancellation was given through the counsel of the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the 1st defendant created a registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, Sellappan, in respect of the suit property dated 31.07.2006. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant created a registered sale deed in favour of Hanifa, the 3rd defendant, on 11.10.2006. The 4th defendant, document writer, had assisted in writing the fraudulent sale deeds, knowing fully well that the sale deeds were created fraudulently. The 5th defendant had also registered those sale deeds, knowing fully well that the general power of attorney has already been cancelled. The sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant are a