JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed a suit seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 12.12.2005, executed by his power of attorney, the 2nd defendant in favour of the first defendant as a fraudulent document. He also sought for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the findings of the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

2. According to the plaintiff/appellant, the suit property belonged to him under a sale deed dated 13.12.1985. It is the case of the plaintiff that he borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from one Periyannan and at the time of borrowal, the said Periyannan insisted the plaintiff to execute a power of attorney in favour of his son, the 2nd defendant, as a security for the above said loan transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff executed a power of attorney on 31.12.2001 in favour of the 2nd defendant with regard to the suit property. It is contended by the plaintiff that the above said power of attorney was executed only as a security for the above said loan transaction and it was not a genuine power deed, intended to empower the 2nd defendant to sell the suit property. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant after taking the power deed, entered into a nominal sale agreement with his brother P.Selvakumar on 31.12.2001, agreeing to sell the suit property to him and the said transaction was entered into, as per the usual practise followed by the money lenders. The plaintiff further stated that he discharged the entire loan amount borrowed by him from Periyannan, however, the 2nd defendant did not return the original power of attorney and he demanded more amount towards interest. The plaintiff refused to pay more amount, as he already paid the principal amount together with the agreed interest. The plaintiff also contended that on 15.02.2012, the first defendant set fire the trees standing in the suit property and on enquiry it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the first defendant purchased the suit property from the 2nd defendant, the power agent of the plaintiff. It was also came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the sale agreement with Selvakumar was cancelled by the 2nd defendant and subsequently property was sold to the 1st defendant, vide sale deed dated 12.12.2005. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant by using the power of attorney, which was executed as a security alone for the loan transaction between the plaintiff and Periyannan, created a false sale deed. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the above said sale deed is liable to be set aside as it was the fraudulent document. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought for setting aside the sale deed dated 12.12.2005 and for consequential injunction.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement and denied various allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint. It was the case of the first defendant that the plaintiff executed a power of attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant, authorising him to deal with the suit property and pursuant to the same, the 2nd defendant sold the suit property to the first defendant for a valid consideration. It was also stated by the first defendant that he was a bonafide purchaser of the suit property for a valuable consideration and hence, the sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant, based on the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff is binding the plaintiff. The allegation of the plaintiff as if the power of attorney was executed in favour of the 2nd defendant as a security for a loan transaction was specifically denied by the first defendant. The first defendant also claimed that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property