The validity of a power of attorney post-principal's death remains contingent on whether it is coupled with interest, impacting the necessity of parties in litigation.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. The Second Appeal in S.A.238/2023 is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.7/2022 on the file of Sub Court, Denkanikottai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.65/2010 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Denkanikottai.

2. The Second Appeal in S.A. 239/2023 is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.6/2022 on the file of Sub Court, Denkanikottai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.172/2008 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Denkanikottai.

3. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above suits have preferred the present Second Appeal.

4. The suit in O.S. No.65/2010 is filed for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The contention of the plaintiffs in the above suit is that, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sisters and the 3^rd plaintiff is the mother of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and that the suit property is the self acquired property of the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 namely Sembugan, who purchased the same by virtue of a sale deed dated 17.05.1952. The revenue records stands in the name of Sembugan. On 28.04.2005, the father Sembugan along with the plaintiffs 1 and 2 executed a deed of General Power of Attorney in favour of one Chinnappa for an extent of 6.24 acres comprised in New Sub division No.171/2, which is the suit property. On 08.01.2007, the said Sembugan died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and the General Power of Attorney became infructuous. On 21.01.2008, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 cancelled the power deed through a registered cancellation deed dated 21.01.2008. Thereafter, the plaintiffs are cultivating the suit land. While so, in the first week of March 2010, the defendant claimed that he is authorised by Chinnappa to occupy the suit land. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 14.03.2010 to the defendant. In spite of notice, the defendant acted against the interest of the plaintiff and on 04.04.2010, he came to the suit land proclaiming that he got a sale deed from Chinnappa Hence, the suit.

5. The claim of the plaintiffs is resisted by the defendant stating that the suit property is the self acquired property of the deceased Sembugan @ Sombaiah, who executed a registered Power Deed on 28.04.2005 along with his daughters in favour of one Chinnappa and delivered possession of the suit property to him. The said Chinnppa had purchased the suit property from the deceased Sembugan @ Sombaiah at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre and in all paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the deceased Sembugan @ Sombaiah as sale consideration. Hence, the General Power of Attorney executed by the deceased Sembugan and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 is coupled with interest and therefore, the power deed executed by them is irrevocable. In pursuant to the power deed, possession was handed over to Chinnappa and the same is also admitted by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.172/2008. Thereafter, the said Chinnappa executed a registered sale agreement on 01.02.2008 in favour of one Nanjappa for a sale consideration for Rs.2,80,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance and agreed to execute a sale deed within a period of 3 years from the date of sale agreement after receiving the balance sale consideration. At the time of the said sale agreement, Sembugan @ Sombaiah was alive. While so, the said Nanjappa is a necessary party to the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party. It is further submitted that the said power agent Chinnappa along with Nanjappa jointly executed a sale deed on 17.03.2008 in favour of the defendant for a valid consideration. The defendant is in possession an