IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 09.12.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 16.12.2020 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM CRP(PD).No.4358 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

1. Rangasamy Gounder

2. Muthulakshmi 3. Manjula Devi

4. Revathy

5. Chitra Devi

6. Boopathy ... Petitioners Vs.

1. Balamurugan

2. Jayachandran ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the orders of the learned District Munsif of Tiruppur, dated 15.07.2015 in IA.No.437 of 2015 in OS.No.991 of 2014 and allow the above CRP.

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Hariharan for Mr.V.Nicholas For Respondents : Mr. K.Govi Ganesan

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the dismissal of their application in IA.No.437 of 205 in OS.No.991 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruppur dated 15.07.015.

2. The petitioners herein had filed an application in IA.No.437 of OS.No.991 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruppur under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission of the court to amend the plaint as mentioned in the said application. The learned District Munsif by the order dated 15.07.2015 had dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard Mr.A.Hariharan for Mr.Nicholas, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, the learned counsel for the second defendant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners herein had filed a suit in OS.No.991 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruppur, to declare the sale deed dated 20.10.2003 as null and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He further submitted that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the petitioners. He further submitted that in the year 2001, the first petitioner was in need of money of Rs.50,000/- and hence, he approached the first respondent who was running a Finace Firm along with the second respondent and made a request to lend a sum of Rs.50,000/- as loan. At that time, the first respondent insisted the first petitioner to execute a general power of attorney in his favour to ensure that the petitioners will repay the said loan promptly. He further submitted that the petitioners, believing the words of the first respondent, had signed the papers which were produced by the first respondent and subsequently, the same was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Erode. He further submitted that the first respondent demanded to pay interest at the rate of 48% per annum and since the petitioners were in urgent need of money, they have agreed to repay the said loan with interest at the rate of 48% per annum and accordingly, the first respondent gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the first petitioner and subsequently, the first petitioner had repaid the said loan with interest in ten instalments, but, the first respondent did not issue any receipt for the said payments and hence suspecting that the first respondent may cheat them, they had cancelled the said power of attorney on 06.10.2013 and sent a registered notice to the first respondent informing her that the said power of attoreny has been cancelled. He further submitted that the first respondent after knowing the contents of the said notice did not receive and returned back and thereafter, he executed a sale deed on 20.10.2003 in favour of the second respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since the first respondent had executed the said sale deed in favour of the second respondent only after cancellation of the general power of attorney, the sale will not bind upon the petitioners and hence, they filed a suit in OS.No.991 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruppur to declare the said sale deed