Misrepresentation in a power of attorney invalidates related transactions, as evidenced by scrutiny of compliance with registration requirements.

J U D G M E N T

The suit for declaration that Exts.A5 and A6 Sale Deeds are null and void, and for a prohibitory injunction against trespass and alienation, was decreed by the trial court. The defendants are in appeal.

2. The first plaintiff is the mother of the other plaintiffs and the defendants. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney dated 25.08.2006 executed by the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the first defendant. Exts.A5 and A6 Sale Deeds which are under challenge in the suit have been executed by the first defendant in his capacity as the power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs. Ext.A5 Sale Deed is executed on 28.07.2007. It relates to the plaint 'A' schedule property. It is executed in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant as the power of attorney holder of the first plaintiff. Ext.A6 is executed on 20.07.2007. It relates to the plaint 'B' schedule. It is executed in favour of defendants 1 to 4 by the first defendant as the power of attorney holder of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The power of attorney was cancelled by the plaintiffs as per Ext.B6 Revocation Deed dated 27.07.2007.

3. According to the plaintiffs, there was a decision in the family that the 'kudiyirippu' property would be given to the 4th defendant. Under the guise of getting executed a release deed in respect of the said property, Ext.A1 power of attorney was got executed. Immediately on coming to know what had really transpired, the plaintiffs executed Ext.B6 Revocation Deed on 27.07.2007, cancelling the power of attorney. The cancellation was intimated to the defendants as per Ext.A8 notice dated 01.08.2007. Ext.A7 public notice was also given in newspaper on 05.08.2007. The plaintiffs allege that Ext.A1 power of attorney is vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud and undue influence, and is void. The plaintiffs seek for a declaration that Exts.A5 and A6 Sale Deeds are void and that it does not affect their title and possession over the plaint schedule properties. Further, a relief of prohibitory injunction is sought to restrain the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from alienating the same.

4. The defendants filed a joint written statement denying the plaint allegations. It was contended that there was an arrangement in the family to sell off the plaint 'A' schedule property and to pay its consideration to the first plaintiff, to sell off the plaint 'B' schedule property and pay its consideration to plaintiffs 2 and 3, and also to sell the 'kudiyirippu' property and other properties and to disburse the consideration between the parties according to their respective shares. It was decided that, if any of the sharers are desirous of acquiring the said properties they would be given the first option before selling it outside the family. The 4th defendant expressed his desire to acquire the 'kudiyiruppu' property, to which all the other sharers agreed. They decided to execute a conveyance with regard to the 'kudiyiruppu' property in favour of the 4th defendant and also to execute a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant for convenience, to enable the other transactions. Accordingly, the conveyance in favour of the 4th defendant and the power of attorney were registered on the same date. The contention of the plaintiff that they were under the impression that it is only the conveyance in favour of the 4th defendant that was being executed and registered, was denied. It was affirmed that Ext.A1 Power of Attorney, and Exts.A5 and A6 conveyances are valid.

5. The trial court found Ext.A1 to be vitiated by misrepresentation and held it to be void. Consequently Exts.A5 and A6 were also declared null and void. The trial court also granted a decree for prohibitory injunction as was prayed for.

6. I have heard Sri.M.P.Ramnath, the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants and Sri.V.V. Ashokan, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants woul