The court affirmed that a General Power of Attorney validly executed binds the rights of co-owners, and failure to act within the limitation period bars claims for partition.

JUDGMENT

The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1 of 2014, dated 30.08.2017, on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi.

2. The appellants / plaintiffs have filed the above suit, claiming the following reliefs:

a) To direct the 1^st defendant to partition the plaintiff's three-fifth share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and hand over the same.

b) To grant a permanent injunction restraining the 2^nd defendant from removing the name of the plaintiffs in Patta No. 547 with respect to the plaint schedule property.

c) To grant a permanent injunction restraining the 3^rd defendant and his agents from interfering with their rightful title and possession over the suit schedule property.

d) To award the cost of the suit to the plaintiffs from the defendant.

e) To pass such other reliefs as the Court deems fit and proper.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status / ranking in the original suit.

4. The plaintiff's case in short is as follows:

4.1. The suit property originally belonged to Seeniammal, W/o. Paul Nadar. She was enjoying a separate patta in patta No. 391 under the UDR Scheme. The present patta number for the said suit property is 547. Seeniammal passed away in the year 1989, her husband predeceased her. Chellammal, Selvi, Sekar, Balasingham, and Chellappa are the legal heirs of Seeniammal. Among them, Balasingham also predeceased Seeniammal. His wife papa (Sivagaami) also died. On 09.03.1994, Madakkan Nadar who is not a party in this suit fraudulently obtained the General Power of Attorney (GPA) by misrepresenting it as a lease deed from the two daughters Selvi and Chellammal. According to the Succession Act , they were entitled only to 2/5 shares in the suit property, but the entire suit property has been shown in the said General Power of Attorney (GPA). This document does not bind the right of Seeniammal’s legal heirs. The above said Madakkan Nadar made a self-sale on 18.04.1994 vide registered sale deed in document No. 316/1994 at the Sub-Registrar office, Uthumalai, and has gifted the said suit property to its full extent to the 1^st defendant on 15.09.1997 vide a gift deed. The said gift deed is not valid because Selvi and Chellammal did not get any sale consideration for the said suit property from Madakkannu Nadar. A sale deed executed without consideration is void. The plaintiffs did not accept the above- mentioned sale deed. The gift deed never came into force nor was acted upon.

4.2. On 29.11.2013 the plaintiffs applied for the encumbrance certificate at the Sub Registrar’s office, Uthumalai and after that only they came to know that the act of Madakkannu Nadar is illegal. The suit property is a Punja land. The suit property is in joint possession of the plaintiffs and other heirs of Seeniammal. The plaintiffs have purchased the undivided 3/5 shares from the heirs of late.Seeniammal namely Chellappa, Sekar, Bala Singham, on 10.10.2013. Moreover, mutation has been effected with respect to the sale deed dated 10.10.2013 and the plaintiffs' name are also incorporated in the Patta bearing document No. 547 with respect to the suit property. The plaintiffs’ have 3/5 share of the said suit property. The 3^rd defendant with a view to harass the plaintiffs, through their agents have filed false complaints to the 2^nd defendant and without any prior notice, the 2^nd defendant required the plaintif