A power of attorney cannot authorize self-serving transactions without the principal's consent, rendering such documents void due to fraudulent execution.

JUDGMENT :

A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2019 rendered by the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem, in O.S. No.311 of 2013.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 04.10.2013 executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant and registered as Document No.6407 of 2013, and for a further declaration that the sale agreement dated 04.10.2013 entered into between the first and third defendants and registered as Document No.6409 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Sooramangalam, is null and void, together with consequential reliefs.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to in accordance with their respective ranks before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case: The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit property. Owing to urgent family necessities, she was in need of money and, in June 2013, approached the second defendant for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. The second defendant advanced a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a loan, repayable with interest at the rate of 1.50% per month. As security for the said loan, the second defendant is stated to have obtained a sale agreement dated 17.06.2013 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant and also a power of attorney of even date in his own favour. According to the plaintiff, without her knowledge or consent, the second defendant cancelled the said sale agreement on 04.10.2013 and, on the very same day, acting under the power of attorney, executed a sale deed in favour of the third defendant without passing any consideration. The plaintiff asserts that she has at all times remained in possession of the suit property. It is further alleged that on the same day, namely 04.10.2013, the third defendant entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant and that all the aforesaid documents were brought into existence collusively by the defendants with a malafide intention to grab the suit property. The plaintiff claims to have become aware of these transactions only on 15.10.2013, when the third defendant came to the suit property asserting ownership. Thereafter, she obtained copies of the relevant documents and, on 25.10.2013, questioned the defendants regarding the validity of the said transactions. As there was no response, the plaintiff instituted the present suit.

5. Brief facts of the defendants’ case: All the defendants filed a common written statement. According to them, the plaintiff had entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant fixing a period of eleven months for completion of the sale. However, the plaintiff and her husband, Thirunavukarasu, allegedly insisted upon completion of the transaction within three months, as a result of which the first defendant could mobilise only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within that short period. In view of the plaintiff’s insistence on early completio