IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.06.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI S.A. No. 1136 of 2007 and M.P.No. 1 of 2007

1. Subramaniyan

2. Kandasamy

3. Lakshmi Bala

4. Ramanathan

5. Balambal ... Appellants Vs.

Rajendiran (died)

2. Arumugam

3. Pushpa

4. Elamaran

5. Brinda

6. Rani

7. Ponnu

8. Jayanthi

9. Vigneswari

10. Maheswari

11. Minor Kalaivani

12. Minor Priyadarshini

13. Minor Anand Natrajan Respondents 11 to 3 are minors represented by their natural guardian mother Maheswari.

14. R.Elumalai

15. Kannagi

16. R.Varadhan

17. R.Selvam (Respondents 14 to 17 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 1^st respondent vide court order dated 26.10.2022 in C.M.P.

Nos. 15004, 15005 & 15006 of 2022)

.. Respondents PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2007 passed in A.S.No.73 of 2005 on the file of I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.136 of 2002 on the file of Addl. District Munsif Court, Villupuram.

For Appellants : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan For Respondents : Mrs.V.Srimathi for R14 to R17 R1 – died R2 – No appearance R3 to R13 – Given up

JUDGMENT

The appellants herein are the defendants 5,6,8, 10 and 14, in the suit in O.S.No. 136 of 2002 on the file of Addl. District Munsif, Villupuram, challenging the reversal finding of the first appellate court in A.S.No. 73 of 2005 on the file of I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Before the trial court, the 1^st respondent herein viz, Rajendiran filed a suit in O.S.No.136 of 2002 against defendants 1 to 14 on the file of District Munsif Court, Villupuram praying for declaration along with consequential injunction and to deliver the vacant possession of property. The 1^st defendant remained exparte. The said suit was contested by the defendants 2, 4 to 9 and 13 to 18 and others remained exparte. Pending suit proceedings, the 12^th defendant died and his legal heirs were impleaded. On considering the evidence of both sides, the learned trial judge dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for, besides his claim also been barred by limitation and necessary parties are also not impleaded. Since other legal heirs are not impleaded, the suit was dismissed. Against which, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.73 of 2005 before the I Addl. Sub-Court, Villupuram, wherein the first appellate judge has independently analysed entire evidence as well as facts and framed separate issues and finally held that the contesting defendants are not bonafide purchasers and already the power of attorney given to the 1^st defendant was cancelled by the plaintiff, thereby the plaintiff is entitled for the claim as he prayed for. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Challenging the reversal findings of first appellate court, this defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

4. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of properties in Survey No.64/8, 64/15 and 64/18 along with other properties in Panampattu Village, Villupuram Taluk. He had also purchased 30 cents in Survey No.64/8 through sale deeds of the year 1974 and also purchased another 30 cents in Survey No.64/18 in the year 1979 from one Govindaraj Gounder, thereafter he enjoyed those properties as absolute owner. He made some of portions unsold and the remaining extent was vacant except suit item No.6. But, the first defendant colluded with other defendants created some documents like sale deeds with regard to suit schedule property in the name of defendants 2 to 4 as if he was a general power of attorney of this plaintiff to deal with immovable property concerned in the above survey numbers. He would submit that the 1^st defendant was not given such a power to deal with the right and tit