JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2020 passed in O.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai.

2.The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai. The respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants in that suit. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the alleged sham and nominal, self-serving documents dated 09.04.2010 and 29.07.2005 in respect of the suit item Nos.1 and 2 properties st st respectively executed by the 1 defendant as power agent of the 1 plaintiff nd and the deceased Murugesan in favour of the 2 defendant are null and void and for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties and consequential permanent injunction.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4.The brief facts are as below:

(a) The case of the plaintiffs (appellants herein ) :-

The suit properties and other properties ancestrally belonged to the grandfather Karuppanan. He had four sons, namely Mari, Karuppanan, Nagan and Alagan @ Alagu. The 1st defendant is the son of Mari. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The 1st plaintiff married Chandran, who is the son of Alagan. The 2nd plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the children of the 1st plaintiff and Chandran. The 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are sisters. The brother of Chandran, namely Murugesan, was a heart patient and he was looked after by Chandran, and he permanently resided along with Chandran’s family. Chandran died on 28.11.1992. So, the 1st plaintiff, being widow and Murugesan being a heart patient, have jointly executed a general power deed dated 31.07.1999 in favour of the 1st defendant. The said Murugesan executed a Will dated 16.01.2007 bequeathing his properties in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Thereafter, the said Murugesan died on 12.10.2008 and the Will came into effect. The plaintiffs constructed shopping premises in the 1st item and let them out to tenants. The defendants 1 and 2 acted against the welfare of the plaintiffs and created a sham and nominal sale deed dated 09.04.2010 in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the 1st item of the suit property. When Murugesan died on 12.10.2008, the power deed executed by Murugesan and the 1st plaintiff automatically ceased. Hence, the said sale deed dated 09.04.2010 is not a valid one. Moreover, the plaintiffs cancelled the power deed dated 31.07.1999, executed in favour of the 1st defendant by way of a cancellation deed dated 25.10.2010. The same was duly informed to the defendants 1 and 2 and other defendants by issuing a legal notice dated 14.12.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know during the last week of April, 2011 that the 1st defendant had also created a sham and nominal sale deed dated 29.07.2005 in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the 2nd item of the suit property. The plaintiffs got a certified copy on 02.05.2011 and on perusal of the same, found that the 1st defendant, as power agent of the 1st plaintiff and Murugesan, had executed the said deed in favour of his wife, the 2nd defendant. The said sale is not binding on the plaintiffs, and the said Murugesan. Therefore, the plaintiffs have laid the suit for declaration and injunction.

(b) The case of the defendants 1 & 2 (Respondents 1 & 2 herein):-

The averments that the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to Karuppanan and that he had four sons and other relationships alone are admitted. The 1st plaintiff’s husband Chandran died on 28.11.1992. After his death, the 1st plaintiff and brother of Chandran namely, Murugesan, jointly executed a registered power deed dated 31.07.1999 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of suit properties with full power of alienation. After the death of Chandran, the 1st plaintiff and her children were brought by the 1st def