IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 22.10.2025 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A.S.No.928 of 2020 and CMP No.12891 of 2020

1. Kalaimani

2. Palanisamy ... Appellants Vs

1. Pandiyan

2. Arunvel

3. Samyuktha Gomathi

4. Velusamy ... Respondents PRAYER in A.S.No.928 of 2020 : This Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.177 of

2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

PRAYER in CMP No.12891 of 2020:This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., to grant an interim injunction, restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from creating any third party rights, from disposing and alienating the property in any manner, in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.177 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, pending disposal of the above first appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.Vivek For R1 to R3 : Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For R4 : Mr.M.Guruprasad

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, in O.S. No.177 of 2015, dismissing the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in trial court.

3. Brief facts of the plaint: The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a preliminary decree on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 13.01.1998 executed by the 4th defendant as power agent of defendants 1 to 3. The suit was filed for recovery of a principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest amounting to Rs.12,45,000/-, in total a sum of Rs.16,45,000/-.

4. The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs rely upon a Power of Attorney dated 06.08.1997 executed by the 1^st defendant, for himself and on behalf of minor defendants 2 and 4 in favour of the 4th defendant, authorising him to execute sale deeds, register documents, and borrow loans on equity mortgage either from private financiers or nationalised banks, and to discharge such loans.

5. Pursuant thereto, the 4th defendant executed a mortgage deed in favour of Plaintiffs’ dated 13.01.1998 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The consideration under the mortgage was stated to have been adjusted by discharging the antecedent debts of the 1st defendant under the following promissory notes:

(i) dated 25.06.1996 for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the 1st plaintiff;

(ii) dated 02.04.1995 for Rs.35,000/- in favour of Mrs. Mani, wife of the 2nd plaintiff;

(iii) dated 24.04.1995 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of Marappa Gounder, son of the Palaniyappa Gounder;

(iv) dated 17.03.1997 for Rs.75,000/- in favour of Kaliappan; and (v) dated 04.05.1996 for Rs.65,000/- in favour of Ramasamy, totalling Rs.3,75,000/-. The remaining sum of Rs.25,000/- was stated to have been paid in cash to the 4th defendant.

6. It is further pleaded that on 05.01.2004, the 4th defendant made a part payment of Rs.25,000/- towards the mortgage debt. As the defendants 1 to 3 failed to repay the loan amount, the plaintiffs demanded payment. The 4th defendant informed the plaintiffs that the power of attorney had been cancelled on 01.12.2009 and advised them to proceed directly against defendants 1 to 3. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 17.08.2015 was issued, which remained unanswered, compelling the plaintiffs to file the suit.

7. Written statement of the 1st defendant in brief: The 1st defendant admitted that the suit property belongs to him. However, he denied the genuineness of the power of attorney, contending that it was not executed with an intention to authorise the 4th defendant to borrow loans. According to him, the 4th defendant was only a friend, and the power deed was executed when the 1st defendant went abroad, solely for managing and protecting the property, which was later misused.

8. The 1st defendant denied h