J U D G M E N T

This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 23.03.2018, made in O.S.No.99 of 2013. The appellants are the defendants.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration and consequential recovery of possession in respect of the suit property along with the mesne profits; the first plaintiff is an Indian Origin citizen of Malaysia; he is residing in Malaysia and doing business there; the second plaintiff is the maternal uncle of the first plaintiff and he is a permanent citizen of India and residing at Trichy; the second defendant is the son of the first defendant; the second plaintiff is well known to the first defendant’s husband in connection with some trade union activities; after the death of the first defendant’s husband, the second plaintiff introduced the second defendant to the first plaintiff at Malaysia and secured an employment for him at Malaysia; accordingly, the first plaintiff offered a job for the second defendant at Malaysia; the second defendant went to Malaysia in September 2005 and he was given with boarding and lodging at the house of the first plaintiff in Malaysia; when the second defendant was working under the first plaintiff, the second defendant requested the first plaintiff for financial assistance for taking a house on Othi at Trichy, which is the suit property; the defendants undertook to repay the loan amount given by the first plaintiff from his salary; the first plaintiff gave a loan of 40,000/- Malaysian Ringgit to the second defendant; after one month, the second defendant informed the first plaintiff that the suit house is being offered for sale and requested the first plaintiff to provide further 40,000/- Malaysian Ringgit in order to purchase the same; since the second defendant continued to work with the first plaintiff, the first plaintiff graciously provided the required funds; only because of that, he purchased the suit property in the name of his mother/first defendant, under the sale deed dated 14.07.2008; after purchase of the house, the defendants availed an additional loan of 20,000/- Malaysian Ringgit for undertaking renovation work.

2.1 The second defendant came to India to celebrate the house warming ceremony and returned to Malaysia after a short while; at that time, the second defendant persuaded the first plaintiff to offer employment to his mother also; but the first plaintiff expressed his inability to employ his mother; from then onwards, the second defendant was trying to leave Malaysia; whenever the first plaintiff insisted him to repay the loan, the second defendant assured that he would sell the house and repay the loan out of the sale proceeds; power of attorney was also executed in favour of the second plaintiff by the first defendant, in whose name the house was purchased; subsequently, the house was purchased by the first plaintiff himself; the second plaintiff, who is the power agent for the first defendant executed the sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff; the house was purchased by the first plaintiff in consideration of the amount provided by him towards purchase and renovation of the house; however, six months time was granted to the defendants to vacate the property and to hand over possession; as agreed, the defendants did not vacate the house and caused unnecessary delay; on the other hand, the defendants have filed a suit against the first plaintiff as an indigent person in Indigent O.P.No. 7 of 2011 to declare the sale deed dated 09.02.2011 executed in favour of the first plaintiff and the power deed dated 24.07.2009 executed in favour of the second plaintiff as null and void and consequential relief of permanent injunction; hence the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with mesne profits.

3. The second defendant has filed a written statement, which was adopted by the