S.S.Sundar, J. - (1.) The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.195 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli and the second appellant in A.S.No. 87 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli are the appellants in the above second appeal.
(2.) The first respondent in this appeal filed the suit in O.S.No.195 of 2003 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession. The suit property is an extent of 1 acre 85 cents in S.No.445/3 in Sengulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
(3.) The case of the first respondent / plaintiff in the suit is as follows: 3.1.The suit property originally belonged to one Abdul Masjeed and others by virtue of a sale deed dated 26.04.1946. They sold the property to one Uduman. Thereafter, the sons of Uduman divided the suit property into equal half share taking 92 + cents each under a partition deed dated 12.03.1969. The sons of Uduman, namely, Mohamed Masthan and Seyadu Hussain sold their respective 92+ cents to one P.K.Hayadudin under two sale deeds dated 02.08.1994 and 01.08.1994. The said P.K.Hayadudin sold the entire suit property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration by a registered sale deed dated 07.05.2001. The predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 3.2.One P.S.N.Dasan, as power of attorney agent of one Nagoor Mydeen Rowther, executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of one K.P.Varghees on 10.11.1987. The said K.P.Varghees through his power of attorney agent, by name, Thirunavukkarasu, executed a sale deed dated 25.11.1999 to the defendant. The power of attorney deed is a fraudulent document and the said Nagoor Mydeen Rowther had no title or interest or possession over the plaint schedule property. Similarly, the alienation in favour of the defendant through the sale deed dated 25.11.1999 is also a fraudulent one and it cannot confer or convey any title to the defendant. 3.3.Since the suit property being a land with coconut trees without any fence, the defendant encroached into the suit property on the basis of the fraudulent sale deed. In the suit property, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff had planted coconut trees and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the plaintiff, due to his business avocation, was in Bombay and has stayed there for more than a month and returned only in June'2001, he came to know about the fraudulent sale deed and the inclusion of defendant's name in the patta as a joint pattadar. The plaintiff also filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli for deletion of defendant's name from the patta. After due enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, removed the defendant's name from the patta. However, the defendant, on the basis of fraudulent sale deed, somehow got service connection for supply of electricity and the plaintiff has given representation to the Electricity Board. A police complaint was also given and inspite of that the defendant encroached the suit schedule property again on 04.04.2003 and started construction. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.;