Court affirmed the legitimacy of possession claims despite prior litigation, dismissing revision petitions for failing to substantiate procedural abuse.

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed seeking rejection of plaint in O.S.No.99 and 100 of 2024 filed by the respective respondent.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff in both suits, the suit property was purchased by them by a registered sale deed dated 28.12.2023 from the petitioners/defendants through their power agent Radhamani. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the petitioners/defendants were the original owners of the suit property and they executed a power of attorney in favour of Radhamani on 22.05.2023 and pursuant to the said power deed, she executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the petitioners/defendants cannot question the plaintiffs’ right over the suit property. Since the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property, due to misunderstanding with the above said power of attorney, the above suits have been filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration and permanent injunction.

3. It is seen from the averments made in the plaints that the petitioners/

defendants cancelled the power of attorney deed executed in favour of Radhamani, vide cancellation deed dated 26.09.2024. It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that after the sale of the suit property in their favour, the defendants are not entitled to cancel the power deed executed in favour of Radhamani, in respect of the sold out property. Therefore, the respondent/ plaintiff sought for a declaration that the cancellation of power deed dated 26.09.2024 by the petitioners, cancelling the power given to Radhamani was null and void.

4. After receipt of summons in both the suits, the defendants have come before this court with these revisions seeking to strike off the plaints.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners/defendants instituted another suit in O.S.No.98 of 2024 seeking declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs were null and void and for other reliefs. However, in the instant plaints filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs, they failed to make averments regarding the suit filed by the petitioners/defendants. The learned counsel would further submit that instituting a parallel proceedings, that too without mentioning the earlier suit filed by the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of the court and therefore, the plaints file by the respondents/plaintiffs shall be struck off.

6. In the suit in O.S.No.98 of 2024 filed by the petitioners, they prayed for declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the respondents herein were null and void. The respondents herein filed the instant suits seeking declaration that the cancellation of power deed executed in favour of Radhamani was null and void and for consequential injunctions. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners/defendants attempted to interfere with their possession by questioning their sale deed. Merely because the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.98 of 2024 for declaration questioning the title documents of the respondents/plaintiffs, we cannot say that the respondents are not entitled to maintain a suit for declaration and injunction. According to the respondents/ plaintiffs, the petitioners/ defendants attempted to interfere with their possession over the suit property and based on the said cause of action, they filed the instant suits. Whether the cause of action alleged by them are true or not is a matter to be decided at the time of final