BAGYALAKSHMI Vs. APPASAMY ASARI MURUGAN ALIAS MURUGESAN MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant in a suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs, is the appellant herein.

(2.) The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The suit properties belonged to the plaintiff. In respect of those properties and other properties, the plaintiff executed a registered power of attorney on 23.8.1982 in favour of the first defendant. On coming to know that the first defendant was ing against the interest of the plaintiff, a notice was issued by the plaintiff on 6.2.1985 cancelling the said power. Accepting the same, the first defendant has also surrendered the power of attorney to the plaintiff. On 29.8 .1983, the plaintiff conveyed the first item of property to one Nachiappan, under a sale deed, and the same was attested by the first defendant. The said power of attorney neither came into force nor was acted upon. The first defendant in collusion with the defendants 2 and 3 has executed two documents, one a registered mortgage in favour of the second defendant on 19.3.1986 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- under Ex.A8 and another a sale deed in favour of the third defendant under Ex.A9 on 26.5.1986 for a consideration of Rs.22,500/-, wherein the mortgage amount was to be adjusted. Both these documents were invalid in law, and under such circumstances, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for declaration that both the documents marked as Exs.A8 and A9 were invalid and other consequential reliefs.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. It was contended by the defendants that the first defendant pursuant to the registererd power of attorney, executed by the plaintiff, has executed both the mortgage deed under Ex. A8 in favour of the second defendant and the sale deed under Ex.A9 in favour of the third defendant; that the said power was actually in force and has also been acted upon; that the said power, which was a valid one, could not be cancelled by way of a notice; that the said cancellation has no force in law; that both the documents were valid in law; that the third defendant has become entitled to the property pursuant to the sale in her favour, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.