JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to act as per the power deed, dated, 28.01.1985 and sought for a permanent injunction that plaintiff should not interfere in his activities of power agent of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.25 of 2012 before Sub Court Vedasandur. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the 1st defendant is the owner of the suit schedule properties and he had executed a power of attorney for 'A' schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant on his behalf and as guardian of minor defendants 2 and 3 and defendants 4 and 5 have also jointly executed a sale agreement on 22.11.1984 under Exhibit A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) as advance and agreed to receive the balance consideration of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) within a period of one year. The plaintiff further contended that a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) was paid by the plaintiff on 05.11.1986 to the defendants and an endorsement was made at the back of Exhibit A.1-sale agreement to the effect that the period of the sale agreement was extended for another one year. Based upon the above said sale agreement, the defendants have executed a registered power of attorney on 28.01.1985 under Exhibit A.3 in favour of the plaintiff. As per the said power of attorney, the defendant has already sold out some portions and in the balance of the property, a lay out has to be created. Hence, the sale agreement under Exhibit A.1 was further extended till 22.11.1987.

4. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants are attempting to terminate the sale agreement. Though the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendants are not ready to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant under Exhibit A.10 on 03.01.1985. However, there was no reply from the defendants.

5. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant issued a paper publication on 25.07.1996 under Exhibit A.9, publishing that they have cancelled the power deed executed under Exhibit A.3. The plaintiff further contended that without issuing any prior notice to the plaintiff, the defendants are not entitled to cancel the power deed. Hence, the present suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to act as per Exhibit A.3 power deed, dated, 28.01.1985 and seeking a decree for permanent injunction as against the defendant, not to interfere in the activities of the plaintiff as power agent of the defendants.

6. The defendants filed a written statement disputing all the contentions of the plaintiff and disputed the sale agreement also.

7. The trial Court arrived at a finding that there is no dispute between the parties that the suit schedule properties belong to the defendants. There is also no dispute with regard to the execution of Exhibit A.3-power deed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff has not filed a suit for specific performance for the enforcement of the alleged sale agreement under Exhibit A.1 or A.8, but the present suit has been filed only for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to act as per Exhibit A.3-power deed said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

8. The trial Court further found that Exhibit A.8-sale agreement has not been proved by the plaintiff. Hence, the power deed entered into under Exhibit A.3 based upon Exhibit A.8-sale agreement is not legally valid.

Based upon the said findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

9. The First Appellate Court found that based upon Exhibit A.3-power deed, the plaintiff has exec