J U D G M E N T

This Regular Second Appeal is by the objector/

petitioner challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissing the petition filed by him under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C in Misc.Case.No.6/2005 in O.S.No.139/2003 which came to be confirmed in R.A.No.54/2007.

2. One B. Mohammed Harris (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit in O.S.No.139/2003 against one Bavuvalappil Chalil Ashraf (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1) and Ansari Kadakkan Kadavath (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.2) for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 90 cents including a residential premises therein and for relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof.

3. Plaintiff claim that he is the owner of suit schedule property. The other half belongs to his brother B Mohammed Ali, who is in Bengaluru and he is not in possession of suit schedule property. Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and residing in the premises situated in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 was business partner of plaintiff in the year 2000 and they were doing international trading of import and export of fresh fruits and vegetables. Their trading office is situated at Bengaluru. However, the business suffered loss and defendant No.1 put the entire blame on the plaintiff and demanded Rs.22 lakhs. During 2002, defendant No.1 took three blank cheques from plaintiff with a view to recover money. He also obtained a General Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2002 from the plaintiff with reference to suit schedule property by exercising police force. Hence it is not valid.

3.1 Vide letter dated 29.10.2003, plaintiff cancelled the said General Power of Attorney. However, on 26.06.2002, based on the GPA, defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed, conveying all the rights of plaintiff in suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. The sale deed is void ab initio. Defendant No.2 applied for change of Khatha and it was resisted by plaintiff. However, his objections were overruled on the ground that defendant No.2 is holding a registered document. Hence, to clear the clog on his title, plaintiff is filing the suit. Plaintiff continued to be in possession of the said property.

3.2 On 19.08.2003, plaintiff was forcefully taken to the police station and his signatures were taken to several papers. Any documents created with them would not be binding on the plaintiff. Based on the sale deed, defendant Nos.1 and 2 started demanding possession of suit schedule property with the help of local police and hence the suit.

4. However, the suit ended in compromise between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Briefly stated the terms of the compromise are as under:

"i) Defendant number two permitted the plaintiff to continue to reside in the premises in suit schedule property till 31.12.2004( End of the year)

ii) During this period, plaintiff shall not allow any outsider to stay in the premises or create any tenancy, right or title etc.

iii) Plaintiff agreed to surrender possession of the building in good condition to defendant No.2 or before 31.12.2004 without creating any obstruction.

iv) Plaintiff admit ownership of defendant No.2 on the suit schedule property as per the sale deed No.516/02–03.

v) Plaintiff withdrew all the claims and allegations made in the plaint. Defendant No.2 agreed not to disturb the peaceful occupation of the premises by plaintiff up to 31.12.2004.

vi) The parties agreed to pass a decree for recovery of possession in favour of defendant No.2, directing the plaintiff to surrender vacant possession of the premises in suit schedule property and not to create any obstruction or resistance to the peaceful delivery of property and the premises therein on 31.12.2004, either by himse