(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.07.2025 passed in AS.No.57 of 2019 by the Learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal which confirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 14.06.2017 passed in OS.No.12 of 2013 by the Learned Sub Judge, Rasipuram.)

1. The defendants 1 & 2 are the appellants herein. They assail the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2025 in AS.No.57 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2017 in OS.No.12 of 2013 passed by the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram, thereby decreeing the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale presented by the 1st respondent herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the Trial Court.

3. The defendants 2 & 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is the power agent of defendants 1 to 3.

4. O.S.No.12 of 2013 was presented before the Sub Court, Rasipuram, seeking the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule mentioned property belongs to defendants 1 to 3. The defendants 1 to 3 developed a layout under the name and style of “KKS Nagar”. After plotting out, defendants 1 to 3 sold plot Nos.4, 5, 6, 9, 21 & 28 to third parties. They retained 17 ½ cents of land for their own use. The defendants 1 to 3 appointed the 4th defendant as their power agent. This was by way of two separate deeds of power of attorney. The 3rd defendant executed a power of attorney dated 20.08.2008 and the defendants 1 & 2 executed a separate power of attorney dated 28.08.2008. Both are registered documents.

5. On the strength of the deeds of power of attorney, the 4th defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 28.01.2011. This was with respect to Plot Nos.37 and 41. An advance of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid, leaving aside a sum of Rs.44,600/- to be paid. The time period fixed to pay the balance sale consideration was 24 months. The plaintiff alleged whenever he made a demand, the 4th defendant was giving some excuses and was evading to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff urged that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and it was the 4th defendant who was evading the same, trotting out the excuses that certain disputes had arisen between himself and the defendants 1 to 3.

6. The plaintiff was shocked to receive a notice from the 4th defendant on 05.12.2012 that defendants 1 to 3 cancelled the power of attorney that had been executed in his favour. He urged that the cancellation was post the agreement of sale and hence, cannot be acted upon. Therefore, he issued a reply notice on 22.12.2012, calling upon the defendants to appear before the Office of the Sub Registrar at Rasipuram on 04.01.2013, in order to execute and register the sale agreement in his favour. Defendants 1 to 3 received a notice on 24.12.2012 and sent a response through their Advocate on 05.01.2013.

7. The plaintiff alleged that he was present at the office of the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, to get the deed executed. At that time, he was possessed with the balance of funds. In order to demonstrate that he had been at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, on 04.01.2013, he had signed as a witness in a document registered on that date. The plaintiff urged that taking advantage of the situation, defendants 1 to 3 are trying to alienate the property in favour of third parties. Hence, the present suit.

8. Summons were served on the defendants. The 1st defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the defendants 2 & 3. The defendants conceded that the suit property belonged to them. They also admitted the receipt of the suit notice as well as their reply. They urged that the extent of 2.70 acres in S.F.No.20/3 at Muthukalipatty Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, belonged to them. Out of this extent, 30 cents on the eastern extreme was gifted to the wife of the 1st defendant. Out of the remaining 2.40 acres in their hands, the defendants urged that leaving 15 cents on the northern side and 17 ½ cents on the south western side for their own use, they have executed a power of attorney in favour of the 4th defendant. According to them, the deed is only for an extent of 2.07 ½ acres.

9. They further urged that the 4th defendant had secured a power of attorney from one, Varudhappa Gounder and others, who were their neighbours. It was on the basis of this power of attorney that the 4th defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They pleaded that when the 4th defendant attempted to alienate 15 cents of land on the northern side, they presented a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the 4th defendant and their neighbours, Varudhappa Gounder, his son and grandsons in O.S.No.188 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram. They urged that the suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, on 18.02.2010.

10. It was their further plea that the defendants 1 to 3 never gave a power of attorney to the 4th defendant to alienate the property on the northern side to an extent of 15 cents in S.F.No.20/3. They urged that the plaintiff and 4th defendant were hand in glove.

11. The defendants 1 to 3 pleaded that they have no objection to execute a sale deed in respect of the property mentioned in the sale agreement after receipt of valid consideration based on the power of attorney dated 20.08.2008 excluding the said 15 cents of land. Consequently, they sought dismissal of the suit.

12. The 4th defendant filed a separate written statement. He conceded that the plaintiff sought execution of the sale deed, but he could not do so on account of the cancellation of the power of attorney by the defendants 1 to 3 on 25.04.2011. He questioned the cancellation pleading that it was without notice. He further urged that when questioned, the defendants 1 and 2 had convinced the 4th defendant that issues would be resolved as soon as the 3rd defendant returned to their native place from Chennai. He pointed out defendants 1 to 3 entered into sale agreement with one, Anbalagan with respect to Plot Nos.34 and 45 on 29.12.2010. The said Anbalagan had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Rasipuram. He conceded that he is ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the sale agreement.

13. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:-

                     “(1) Whether the 4th defendant, the power of attorney agent was given power in respect of the suit schedule properties?

                     (2) Whether the agreement of sale dated 20.08.2008 is true, valid and genuine?

                     (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of specific performance as prayed for?

                     (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief as prayed for?

                     (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

                     (6) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?”

14. On the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW1. The attestor and scribe to the sale agreement were examined as PW2 and PW3. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. Through PW2, document under Ex.X1 was marked. On the side of the defendants, 1st defendant examined himself as DW1. The 4th defendant examined himself as DW2. A third party by name Pandiyan was examined as DW3. On the side of the defendants, Ex.B1 to Ex.B15 were marked.

15. On the consideration of the oral and documentary evidences, the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the suit for specific performance deserves to be decreed and decreed the same.

16. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 & 2 preferred a regular appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal. This appeal was received as AS.No.57 of 2019. The 3rd defendant did not join the defendants 1 & 2 in filing an appeal, on account of the fact that he was gainfully employed in the United Kingdom.

17. On re-consideration of the evidences, the learned Appellate Judge came to a conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed the same. Hence, the present second appeal.

18. This appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law on 03.02.2026:-

                     “(i) Whether the Courts below did not consider the legal aspects of Power of Attorney Act while decreeing the suit?

                     (ii) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit contrary to the provisions of Contract Act, especially, Sections 200 to 202 of the said Act? (iii) Whether the Courts below have erred in considering the evidence in consonance with the pleadings?”

19. Pursuant to the order passed by Hon’ble The Chief Justice on 06.07.2026, S.A.No.870 of 2014 and this appeal were clubbed together and posted before this Court.

20. I heard Mr.C.Umashankar for the appellants, Mr.Ramesh for Mr.M.Guruprasad for 1st respondent and Mr.Vikram Kumar P. for Mr.R.Nandakumar for 3rd respondent.

21. After narrating the facts, Mr.C.Umashankar urged that the defendants 1 & 2 / appellants never gave a power of attorney in favour of the 4th defendant to sell 15 cents of land. Taking advantage of the power of attorney executed by Varudhappa Gounder, his son and grandsons, the 4th defendant has clubbed the land and sold them in an unified manner. He pointed out that both the Courts below have not considered the scope of Sections 200 to 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and therefore, he prayed for the judgments of the Courts below to be set aside and for allowing this appeal.

22. Per contra, Mr.Ramesh argued that the execution of the power of attorney under Ex.A2 and Ex.A8, which corresponds to B13 and B14, had not been denied by the defendants. He pointed out that the suit in O.S.No.188 of 2008, which had been relied upon by the defendants in order to refuse execution of the sale deed, itself came to be decreed much after the execution of these two documents. He pointed out that, on the date of execution of Ex.A1, the power of attorney was valid and therefore, the agreement of sale is binding on the defendants. He added that the plaintiff at all points of time had been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.44,600/- and to get the sale deed executed in his favour. It was the defendants 1 to 3, who were evading the execution. Furthermore, he argued that no evidence has been let in to prove that the defendants 1 to 3 had retained the 15 cents of land, which is the subject matter of the agreement and all that they had retained was only 17 ½ cents. He states that all these aspects had been rightly appreciated by the Courts below and hence, it does not require any interference.

23. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the records in detail.

24. The execution of Ex.A1 is admitted by the parties to the document, namely the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant does not have any independent right over the property. He is a mere power agent of defendants 1 to 3. The deeds of power of attorney are registered, as is clear from a perusal of Ex.A2 and Ex.A8. [This corresponds to Ex.B13 and Ex.B14.] On the date on which the agreement had been entered into and the amounts had been received, the power of attorney was valid. It was subsequently that the power deeds had been cancelled. When a power agent enters into an agreement of sale, unless and until it is demonstrated that the agreement is collusive, it would be binding upon the principals, namely the defendants 1 to 3. The ground on which the plaintiff is sought to be non-suited by the defendants 1 to 3 is that Ex.A2 and Ex.A8 did not cover the extent of the property for which Ex.A1 had been entered into. A perusal of Ex.A2 and Ex.A8 does not lead this Court to a conclusion that the defendants had given a power of attorney only for 2.07 ½ acres out of their total extent of land.

25. Mr.C.Umashankar has produced Ex.B3 to Ex.B8. These are documents which have been marked during the cross examination of DW1. A perusal of the registered sale deeds executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the third parties shows that the extent of alienation was only 2.25 acres in the layout styled “KKS Nagar” and not 2.07 ½ acres as alleged. Furthermore, a perusal of Ex.B15 shows that on 28.08.2008, the defendants 1 to 3 had acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- and the execution of the deed of attorney dated 20.08.2008. This deed too, does not indicate that the power deed was only to the extent of 2.07 ½ acres.

26.The sale deeds under Ex.B3 to Ex.B8 as well as the general power of attorney show that plots had been neatly laid out with numbers. This shows the story that the defendants 1 to 3 had retained an extent of 15 cents on the northern side of the property is a false statement. In any event, I should note here that in the second appeal preferred by defendants 1 to 3 in S.A.No.870 of 2014, this Court had come to the conclusion that the subject matter of the power of attorney was 2.25 acres out of 2.40 acres and the story projected by the defendants 1 to 3 herein that they had retained 15 cents for themselves is a false one.

27. Insofar as readiness and willingness of the plaintiff are concerned, it is seen from Ex.A4 that the defendants did not come forth and receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.44,600/- and execute the sale deed. The notice had been received by all the defendants and it was only defendants 1 to 3 who had responded to the same.

28. Apart from that, the plaintiff has shown that he has sufficient funds in his account, as is clear from a perusal of Ex.A10. The plea that the power of attorney can be unilaterally cancelled is one contrary to the Indian Contract Act. Even if the power of attorney shows it is irrevocable, it is not so, unless and until it is a power coupled with interest. In this suit, there is no necessity to go into whether the power of attorney had been validly cancelled or not, as the agreement of sale had been entered into when the power of attorney was alive. It is left open to the defendants 1 to 3 to workout their rights with respect to the validity of the power of attorney in a separate proceeding. As this Court has concluded that the area covered under the agreement of sale is covered by the power of attorney and the plaintiff was ready and willing to convert the sale agreement into sale deed, this appeal deserves only one order and that is one of dismissal. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.

29. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 09.07.2025 passed in A.S.No.57 of 2019 by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 14.06.2017 passed in OS.No.12 of 2013 by the learned Sub Judge, Rasipuram, stands confirmed. The plaintiff will be entitled to his costs throughout. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.