A power of attorney is not compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act for the purpose of presenting a deed of sale; furthermore, a suit for declaration against such transactions is subject to limitation from the date of the registered deed.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

This appeal is preferred by the 3^rd defendant, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against him by the Munsiff Court, Adoor in O.S. No.377 of 2003, as well as the District Court, Pathanamthitta, in A.S. No.151 of 2006, which is for cancellation of the power of attorney.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff is the owner of the property having an extent of 38 cents, which he purchased from the 1^st defendant and his brother, Raghunathan, as per sale deed No.1131 of 1997. With the 1^st defendant in the party array, O.S. No.24 of 2001 was instituted by one Sudheesh, one of the associates of the 1^st defendant, seeking an injunction against the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property by claiming tenancy right over the said property. Later, the plaintiff also filed O.S. No.59 of 2001 against them. Those suits were compromised at the initiative of the 4^th defendant. In O.S. No.59 of 2001, a compromise petition was filed, and the defendants themselves had admitted the title of the plaintiff. During the compromise, the defendants 1 to 4 had introduced the 5^th defendant as a real estate broker who agreed to arrange a purchaser to the plaint schedule property, and thereafter the defendants 1,4 and 5 contacted the plaintiff and informed him that the 5^th defendant had arranged a purchaser for the plaint schedule property. It was further informed that the said purchaser had insisted that the property be registered before the Sub Registrar's Office at Punalur, and, for that, the plaintiff had to submit an application. Believing the words of defendants 1, 4, and 5, the plaintiffs executed certain documents by affixing his signature in blank papers and later it was revealed that a power of attorney was executed in favour of the 1st defendant which was adjudicated before the R.D.O., Adoor and sale deed No.684 of 2003 was executed by the 1^st defendant with the SRO, Enadimangalam in favour of the 2^nd defendant. Later, the 2^nd defendant executed sale deed No.970 of 2003 of SRO, Enadimangalam, in favour of the 3^rd defendant. All such transactions are void and cannot be binding upon the plaintiff because the power of attorney itself is invalid. The plaintiff thus traced the cause of action to the date on which document No.970 of 2003 was executed on 7.8.2003 and later 23.8.2003 when he came to know about the transaction. In the suit, the plaintiff sought for a declaration that the power of attorney dated 20.1.2003 adjudicated by the R.D.O., Adoor, and the subsequent sale deeds are null and void and have no force of law. The 3^rd defendant contested the suit, contending that there is no relationship between defendants 1 and 3, and the plaint schedule property is not in possession of the defendant. The plaintiff had sold the property to the 2nd defendant, and the 2^nd defendant had sold the property to the 3^rd defendant; therefore, the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. The 3^rd defendant had effected mutation of the plaint schedule property in his favour by paying tax thereon. The defendants 1,2,4 and 5 remained exparte, though defendants 1 and 2 filed written statements contesting the case. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A7 documents were produced, and PW1 to PW3 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B5 documents were produced, and DW1 to DW3 were examined. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration.

1.