IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA S.A.No.1119 of 2021 and CMP.No.21466 of 2021 Sampath … Appellant /Vs./

1.Kothandaraman

2.Kandan

3.C.Umapathy … Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC, to set aside the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.1 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurantakam, dated 11.12.2020, confirming the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.227 of

2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranatakam, dated 06.12.2017.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Jagadish For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Babu * * * * *

J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.1 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurantakam, dated 11.12.2020, confirming the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.227 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranatakam, dated 06.12.2017.

2.The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the second appeal.

3.The parties in the second appeal will be referred to as per their litigative rank in the trial Court.

4.The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit properties, permanent injunction and to set aside the sale deeds of the defendants.

5.The plaintiff's case is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Lakshmiammal. She executed a power of attorney in favour of the 1^st defendant on 07.03.2007. Later as the 1^st defendant was acting against the interest of the principal, Lakshmiammal, she cancelled the power of attorney. Thereafter she executed another power of attorney in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff on 09.04.2007. The vendor of the plaintiff sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and eversince the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Whileso, the 1st defendant after cancellation of the power in his favour executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant in turn sold the property to the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff states that he purchased the property after the cancellation of the power of attorney of the 1st defendant and before the sale of property in favour of the 2nd defendant. Hence plaintiff claims that his sale being the prior sale, he is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. As the defendants tried to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

6.The third defendant filed the written statement for himself and the defendants

1 and 2. The defendants on the other hand admit that the suit property originally belonged to Lakshmiammal. The defendants state that the said Lakshmiammal executed a Registered power of attorney in favour of the 1^st defendant on 07.03.2007 and in pursuance to it, the 1^st defendant sold the suit property to the 2^nd defendant on 12.04.2007, who in turn sold it to the 3^rd defendant on 18.03.2009. The defendants state that on the same day of execution of the power of attorney, the 1^st defendant identified the 2^nd defendant for sale of the property and the entire sale consideration of Rs.31,000/- was also paid by the 2^nd defendant to Lakshmiammal who in turn acknowledged the receipt of the sale consideration by issuing a receipt in favour of the 1^st defendant. The defendant further state that the 1^st defendant was not put on notice of the cancellation of the power of attorney by Lakshmiammal and without knowledge of the unilateral cancellation he executed the sale deed in favour of the 2^nd defendant on 12.04.2007 and the 2^nd defendant in turn sold the suit property on 12.04.2007 to the 3^rd defendant. The defendants state that though the sale in favour of the plaintiff was prior in time, the sale deed was not valid as the power of attorney in favour of the 1^st defendant was not cancelled in a manner known to law. The defendants therefore state that the plaintif