C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree in O.S.No.26 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

2.The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2012 is the appellant in A.S.No.217 of 2014 and the plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in A.S.No.218 of 2014.

3.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows :

The suit properties are agricultural lands, described in Item Nos.1 and

2 in the plaint schedule. The 1st item is an agricultural land measuring an extent of 1.77 Acres in New Survey No.89/1 in Thanur Village, Cuddalore Taluk and the 2nd item is also an agricultural land measuring an extent of

1.15 Acres in New Survey No.90/2 in the same Village.

4.It is admitted that the suit properties were purchased by one Mr.Gopal Naidu, the father of the plaintiff. The properties were acquired by the said Mr.Gopal Naidu by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 07.05.1949 and 19.10.1950. Mr.Gopal Naidu died intestate in the year

1986, leaving behind the plaintiff in the suit and her mother.

5.It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and her husband were looking after the lands and that there was no one in the family after the death of the plaintiff's husband in 1990. Hence, it stated that the plaintiff and her mother, on good faith, executed a Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the defendant's brother, by name Sampath, on 15.10.1990, to look after the suit properties. It is stated that the defendant and the Power Agent are the sons of plaintiff's paternal aunt by name Ramanujam and that defendant's brother, the Power of Attorney Agent, volunteered to help the plaintiff in cultivation. The Power of Attorney Deed is a General Power of Attorney including the power of alienation of properties. It is contended by the plaintiff that the properties were not meant to be sold by the Power of Attorney Agent and the Power Agent also did not alienate the properties for more than 18 years.

6.However, the plaintiff, suspecting some foul play, revoked the Power of Attorney given to the Agent by way of a Revocation Deed dated 21.01.2008. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the cancellation of the Power of Attorney was by a registered instrument and that the said cancellation was also informed to the Power of Attorney Agent. Despite the fact that the original Power of Attorney Deed, dated 15.10.1990, was executed by the plaintiff and her mother, the revocation of power was done by the plaintiff alone and it is stated by the plaintiff that her mother could not move around and therefore, she was unable to come to the Registrar's Office.

7.After the cancellation of the Power of Attorney Deed by the plaintiff under the Revocation Deed dated 21.01.2008, the Power Agent executed a sale deed on 10.06.2008 in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff described the transaction as a fraudulent and collusive one to defeat the rights of the plaintiff and her mother. The plaintiff also contended that she was never informed about the sale deed and she was not aware of the sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney Agent in favour of the defendant. Stating that the plaintiff came to know about the sale in favour of the defendant during August, 2011, the plaintiff came forward with the suit for declaring plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the suit properties. Alternatively, the plaintiff prayed for a preliminary decree for partition of her one half share in the suit properties and for consequential reliefs.

8.Even before the filing of the suit, the Power of Attorney Agent died.

The plaintiff's mother also died before filing of the suit.

9.The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that the Power of Attorney Agent, in exercise of his power given under the Power of Attorney Deed, entered into an agreement of sale on 20.12.20