6. Admittedly, the suit properties originally belonged to one Kannammal who is the mother of the first plaintiff, mother in law of the 2nd plaintiff and grand mother of the plaintiffs 3 to 5. Though the plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to the suit property based on the settlement deed executed by the said Kannammal in the year 2002, they were not in a position to disprove the contention of the defendants in respect of their claim based on a power of attorney executed by the said Kannammal in favour of the 1st defendant as early as on 27.01.1989 in respect of the suit properties and also the execution of a sale agreement after receiving the entire sale consideration, which are marked as Exs.B1, B2 and B3. In this case, the plaintiffs have come forward to file the present suits after 18 years challenging such sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the other defendants in the year 1991. The Courts below have pointed out that the father of the defendants 2 to 5, namely, Shanmugham was one of the signatory to the agreement of sale and the receipt of entire sale consideration marked as Exs.B2 and B3 and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot plead ignorance of such transaction made between the said Kannammal and the 1st defendant. Admittedly, the Power of Attorney executed by the said Kannammal was not cancelled at any point of time and therefore, the said Kannammal, being the principal is bound by the action of the Power of Attorney. In this case, apart from executing such Power of Attorney, there was a sale agreement followed by issuing a receipt for entire sale consideration marked as Ex.B2 & B3. The defendants proved the payment by marking original receipt, while the plaintiffs have not even come forward to get into the box to disprove such contention. On the other hand, only their power agent was examined as P.W.1, who, in my view, cannot speak about the transaction that had taken place during the year 1989. Therefore, both the Courts below, based on the appreciation of facts and circumstances and the evidence let in by the parties have rightly found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the suit property based on the subsequent settlement deed executed in the year 2002 by the said Kannammal, when the fact remains that on the date of execution of such settlement deed, the properties were already sold through her Power of Attorney as early as in the year 1991 in favour of the concerned defendants. Therefore, it goes without saying that on the date of execution of such settlement deed, the said Kannammal was not having any title to the suit properties to convey the same to the plaintiffs.
