JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants who suffered a decree for declaration that the sale deed executed by the Power Agent, first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void are the appellants before me.

2. The parties are described as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The brief and material facts that are required to adjudicate the Second Appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased 2359 sq.ft of land under registered sale deeds. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant created an unregistered power of attorney, as if the plaintiffs had authorised him to sell the suit property and based on the said power of attorney, the first defendant had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the second defendant, who was none else than the wife of the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the said sale deed was a result of forged documents and consequently, null and void.

4. The said suit was resisted by the first defendant by filing a written statement and an additional written statement. According to the first defendant, the power of attorney, as per the then existing laws, did not require registration and the allegation that the power of attorney was forged was stoutly denied. The sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant as Power Agent was valid and binding of the plaintiffs and on these grounds, the suit was sought to be dismissed.

5. Before the trial Court, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Madheswaran was examined as P.W.2. Exhibits A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Anbazhagan, Gunasekaran and Thangadurai were examined as D.W.2 to D.W.4 respectively. Exhibits B1 to B29 were filed. Exhibits C1 to C3 were marked as Court Exhibits, being the report of finger print from the Forensic Department.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the general power of attorney dated

02.03.1998 is a forged one?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim declaration that the sale deed dated 11.10.2007 as null and void?

(iii) to what relief?

7. Answering the said issues, the trial Court held that the power of attorney was not a genuine document and the defendants did not prove passing of sale consideration and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit as prayed for. The trial Court also found that correct Court fee was paid by the plaintiffs and merely because Court fees was paid under Section 25 and not under Section 40 of Court Fees Act, it could not be a ground to non-suit the plaintiffs.

8. The defendants preferred an Appeal in A.S. No.5 of 2017.

The First Appellate Court, on independently assessing the oral and documentary evidence, alongside the pleadings of the parties, confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal.

9. Aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal. 10. On 24.11.2017, while admitting the above Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law;

(a) The only case put up by the plaintiff that the power was forged having been found against still is the Lower Appellate court right in confirming the Decree of the Trial Court?

(b) When the defendants have produced original parent documents coupled with a finding that the power is genuine is the Lower Appellate Court right in holding the sale is void?

(c) Is the suit has framed is maintainable without the reliefs of declaration of titles and declaration that the power is void and unenforceable respectively?

11. Heard Mr.S.Sathyaseelan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.B.Ravi, learned counsel for the respondents.

12. I have gone through the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and also the judgments on which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel on either side.

13. The learned counsel for the a