The cancellation of a Power of Attorney is valid if executed without notice to the agent, and subsequent transactions based on it can be declared null and void due to coercion and lack of informed consent.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The both suits have been filed seeking the relief as stated above.

2. Since the above suits have been filed on similar set of facts, submission being common, common Trial was conducted and both suits are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, parties to the litigation have been referred to hereunder as arrayed in C.S. No.519 of 2016.

3.The case of the Plaintiffs in C.S. No.519 of 2016/defendants in C.S. No.204 of 2020, as set out, in the plaint and Written Statement respectively, is as follows:-

(a).The first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is the homemaker and an illiterate pardanasin Muslim woman. The 2nd plaintiff is a trustee of a public trust by name "Mohammed Sathak Trust" which runs 18 educational institutions including an engineering college. The plaintiffs belong to a traditionally rich family and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have been getting rental income of around Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs) per month from their properties. They also have other income. Thus, the incomes they receive from the properties they own are more than sufficient to meet their expenses. They had no necessity at all to dispose any of their properties.

ii. The plaintiffs further submit that the suit property originally belonged to the father of the second plaintiff who had purchased it by a registered sale deed dated 31.7.1967 and he had passed away on 19.3.2004 leaving behind the plaintiffs as the legal heirs. From then, the plaintiffs are its absolute owners and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is a non-residential property and is under the occupation of the tenants who have been paying rent to the plaintiffs. They had also effected mutation of Government and Municipal Corporation records in their name. The present market value of the said property is around Rs.5,00,00,000/-(Rupees five crores only).

(iii). The plaintiffs further submit that the first plaintiff and her husband late S.M. Dastagir did not have child for a long time. Only after more than 18 years of their marital life, they begot the second plaintiff along with another child as twin child and the second child passed away at a later point of time. The 2nd plaintiff had born as a premature baby. The 1^st plaintiff belongs to a very rich family, who own several properties. The father of the 2nd plaintiff, till his demise in the year 2004 was a trustee of Mohammed Sathak Trust. On his demise, the 2nd plaintiff has been appointed as a trustee in his place. Because of their status and wealth and because of the fact that the 2nd plaintiff is the only son, the 1^st plaintiff and her husband took much care of the 2nd plaintiff and did not permit him to face the world independently. The 2nd plaintiff is not doing any business or profession and lived only with the rental income and in managing his household works, he is guided by his relatives. In these circumstances, he got married with on 22.12.2014.

(iv).It is further submitted that about six months prior to his marriage, the 2^nd plaintiff met one Javvad, who was known to him for about three years. Both the plaintiffs and Javvad belong to Keelakarai in Ramanathapuram District. Javvad told the 2^nd plaintiff that the 2^nd plaintiff was not having independent business and so, he was not enjoying full respect among his relatives. He suggested to the 2nd plaintiff to commence a business and earn money which would only give him respect from the bride's family. Javvad had also promised to help the 2nd plaintiff in the business and earn lucrative return for his investments. Javvad suggested to the 2nd plaintiff that they had to import air conditioner and television set etc. and sell them locally which would yield lucrati