A. The Appeal Suit :

1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the aggrieved defendants against the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2013 in O.S.No.92 of 2011, in and by which, the Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration of their title in respect of the suit schedule property; for recovery of possession; for permanent injunction not to interfere with the possession or creating any encumbrance; for cancelling the Power of Attorney, dated 15.08.2007 executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant; for declaring that the sale deed, dated 05.09.2008 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

B. The Pleadings :

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the above reliefs contending that the plaintiffs had mortgaged the suit property at Krishnagiri Co-operative Housing Society on 22.02.1999 after obtaining a loan of Rs.2,50,000/-. On 29.04.2004, a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was also obtained. Since the plaintiffs could not repay the loan on account of their financial crisis, during the period of January, 2008 to June, 2008, the said society and its staff exerted pressure on the plaintiffs to pay the said entire amount of Rs.4,50,000/- immediately. In order to save the suit property, the plaintiffs approached the first defendant for loan of the said sum of Rs.4,50,000/- outstanding to the society. The first defendant insisted that the plaintiffs should sign and hand over three empty N.J.S papers and also execute General Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant in respect of the property. Accordingly a power of attorney was registered on 15/07/2008 and the possession of suit property was also handed over to the first defendant. It was also agreed that a sum of Rs.2/- per Rs.100/- per month has to be paid as interest. It was further agreed that the first defendant will cancel the Power of Attorney and hand over the possession of the suit property as well as the N.J.S papers upon repayment of the loan. The plaintiffs were paying the interest of Rs.9,000/- per month and the plaintiffs had promised to settle the principle amount within two years period. However, when the plaintiffs approached the defendants on 15.08.2010 with a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and requested the defendants to receive the same and cancel the Power of Attorney, the first defendant refused to receive the amount and showed the copy of the sale deed, dated 05.09.2008 that the first defendant sold the property to the second defendant. The worth of the property was more than Rs.13,00,000/- and just by paying Rs.4,50,000/- as loan, the defendants are trying to knock off the suit property. No sale consideration was paid for registering the sale deed and the defendants are threatening the plaintiffs with their supporters and rowdy elements. Since the defendants are also trying to further alienate the suit property, the suit was filed.

C. The Written Statement :

3. The defendants filed a common written statement. They denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs wanted to sell the suit property to settle the debts incurred by them and therefore, they came forward to register a General Power of Attorney, dated 15.08.2007 authorising the first defendant to execute sale document or any type of document for transferring the title to intended buyers of the suit property. Accordingly, the first defendant approached the second defendant to purchase the suit property. In fact, the first defendant handed over the copy of the document relating to the suit property and after confirming the title of the second plaintiff to the suit property, the second defendant came forward to purchase the suit property. The second defendant entered into a sale agreement on 15.07.2008 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and the sale agreement was duly registered. The first defendant received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 15.07.2008 and agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- within one year from the date of sale agreement. The second defendant came to know that the plaintiffs had not discharged the loan taken from the co-operative society and the second defendant took the first defendant to the said society and paid the loan through the first defendant on 15.07.2008 itself. After collecting the loan amount, the Secretary of the society registered the loan discharge receipt on 17.07.2008. The second defendant paid the balance amount being a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 05.09.2008 and got execution of sale deed from the first defendant. The sale deed is valid in law and binding on the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the second defendant incurred more than a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to make additional constructions. The value of the suit property is more than Rs.25,00,000/- and the valuation by the plaintiffs as Rs.13,00,000/- is very low. The second defendant had made improvements on the suit property and the patta is also given in the name of the second defendant and the tax receipts also changed in his name. Therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissing the suit.

D. The Issues :

4. On the strength of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following nine issues:-

(i) Whether the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the first defendant on 15.07.2008 is valid

(ii) Whether the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant would be binding on the plaintiffs

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs have paid proper Court fees (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the prayer of declaration as prayed in the plaint

(v) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to hand over the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs

(vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the prayer of permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint

(vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the prayer of cancellation of the Power of Attorney executed by them in favour of the first defendant

(viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the sale deed No.3051/8, dated 05.09.2008 as null and void

(ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit properties as prayed for by them To what reliefs parties are entitled to

E. The Evidence :

5. On the said pleadings, the first plaintiff, Babujan, examined himself as P.W.1. One Rajendran, the husband of the second defendant, who stood as witness in the sale agreement, sale deed and the cancellation of mortgage receipt, was examined as P.W.2. One Lakshmikanthan, who stood as witness to the Power of Attorney as well as the sale agreement, was examined as P.W.3. One Prabhakaran, who was the scribe, who prepared the Power of Attorney, sale agreement, sale deed and the cancellation of mortgage receipt, was examined as P.W.4. One Shanmugam, who was the Secretary of the Co-operative Society, which advanced loan to the plaintiffs, was examined as P.W.5. One Padmanaban, who was the Junior Assistant in Registrar Office, Krishnagiri was examined as P.W.6.

6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the sale deed in favour of the second plaintiff evidencing the purchase of the suit property on 30.11.1998, is marked as Ex.A-1. The Power of Attorney, dated 15.08.2007 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the first defendant, is marked as Ex.A-2. The sale agreement executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on the same day i.e., on 15.08.2007, is marked as Ex.A-3. The sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 05.09.2008, is marked as Ex.A-4. The receipt of cancellation of mortgage, which was registered on 17.07.2008, is marked as Ex.A-5. The encumbrance certificate issued on 09.09.2011 in respect of the suit property, is marked as Ex.A-6. The certified copy of the sale deed, dated 18.02.1999, is marked as Ex.A-7. The certified copy of the mortgage deed, dated 27.04.2004, is marked as Ex.A-8.

7. Thereafter, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1. On behalf of the defendants, the mortgage cancellation deed is marked as Ex.B1. The Power of Attorney is marked as Ex.B-2. The receipts for payment of money to the society were marked as Exs.B-3 to B-6. The certificate for discharge of loan granted by the society is marked as Ex.B-7. The Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs was marked as Ex.B-8.

F. The Findings of the Trial Court :

8. The Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to hear the learned Counsel on either side and appraised the evidence on record and by a judgment, dated 31.10.2013, found that it has been specifically pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs that the Power of Attorney was executed only as a security and no consideration passed on for sale. In this regard, P.Ws.2 to 4, even though stood as witnesses to the documents, have clearly deposed that they did not know about any sale consideration being passed on. The defendants specifically did not mention as to what was the total sale consideration in the written statement. In the proof affidavit, sale consideration is mentioned as Rs.14,00,000/-. In the written statement, it is mentioned as if the second defendant paid Rs.4,50,000/-. In the sale agreement, it is mentioned that Rs.50,000/- was paid on the date of the sale agreement and Rs.4,00,000/- had to be paid within a period of one year from the date of the agreement. In that view of the matter, it was found that the defendants are lying before the Court. The Trial Court also found that the defendants did not prove that a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiffs as sale consideration. The second defendant did not even get into the box. The second defendant's husband was examined as P.W.2. The very registering of the sale agreement even when the mortgage was in force casts a grave doubt about the transaction. In that totality of the circumstances, the Trial Court believed the plaintiffs that the Power of Attorney was executed only as a security for loan and therefore, the sale deed executed in respect of the same is not valid The Trial Court also found that the plaintiffs have paid appropriate Court fees and the Trial Court also found that the plaintiffs are entitled to all the reliefs prayed for in the suit. Accordingly, it decreed the suit as indicated supra.

G. The Submissions :

9. Heard Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants. Even though notice was served, the plaintiffs did not appear before this Court.

10. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that in this case only the relief to seek the cancellation of that the sale deed can be prayed for as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Power of Attorney was valid as on date of execution of sale agreement and subsequently on date of execution the sale deed. There cannot be any pleading in this case that the sale deed is void or voidable. Therefore, even if the first defendant has not handed over the entire sale consideration, the plaintiffs at best can only sue the first defendant for accounts . Since the sale deed is niether void nor voidable, the relief cannot be granted in respect thereof to the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel relied upon the Division Bench of this Court in Dr.B.R.Shankar and Ors. Vs. B.R.Srinivasa Rao and Anr. in O.S.A.Nos.99 and 100 of 2018, more-fully relying upon the paragraph Nos.33, 35 and 45 for the said proposition that when there was no revocation of power and when the capacity of the Power Agent to execute the sale deed is not in dispute, the sale deed cannot be treated as null and void.

11. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that this apart, the defendants were put into possession and they were even making improvements in the schedule property very much to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs have not authorised the first defendant for the sale and if the defendants are in the possession of the property and are putting up further construction, the very delay in filing the suit only in the year 2011 by itself would defeat the equitable remedy under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act to the plaintiffs. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalith Kumar Jain and Anr. Vs. Jaipur Traders Corporation Pvt Ltd.(2002) 5 SCC 383 [LQ/SC/2002/552] ,which reads as follows:-

" 13. One more fact which disentitles the plaintiff to the equitable relief under Sections 27/31 of the Specific Relief Act is the unexplained delay in filing the suit after the exchange of notices in September 1973. Almost three years later, the suit was filed. This inaction has its own revelation. Either the plaintiff did not stand by his declaration to rescind the contract, as held by the trial court, or the plaintiff was sitting on the fence and waiting to see whether the turn of events would be to his advantage or disadvantage."

12. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that in this case, even accepting the case of the plaintiffs that they executed the Power of Attorney only as a security for the loan transaction, there is absolutely no explanation or logic in handing over the possession of the suit property. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is the plaintiff's case that there was a loan transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant and that they were paying interest. There is absolutely no evidence produced by the plaintiffs in that regard and therefore, when the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case, the suit cannot be decreed merely on the weakness of the defendants' case. The Trial Court omitted to consider that the defendants have made additional constructions and improvements on the suit property which would again disentitle the plaintiffs of the equitable reliefs. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the Trial Court omitted considering that the Court fees to be paid under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the plaintiffs have improperly valued the suit under Section 25(d) of theand the suit is liable to be dismissed on this score also.

H. The Discussion & Findings :

13. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants and perused the material records of this case. The first plaintiff had examined himself and he had spoken about a fact that the plaintiffs were in financial stress, unable to repay the loan to the Co-operative Society and therefore, approached the first defendant and upon execution of the Power of Attorney and the other documents, the first defendant paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and the plaintiffs paid the balance in all totalling to a sum of Rs.6,17,233/- and the mortgage was cancelled. In order to prove further the contention that the Power of Attorney is only as a security, even though P.W.2 is the husband of the second defendant - the purchaser, the plaintiffs side summoned him and he was examined. In his evidence, P.W.2 admitted that there was no cash transaction at the time of execution of the Power of Attorney. He had further admitted that the value of the property will be Rs.15,00,000/- as on date of entering into the sale agreement. He has further admitted that as per the sale agreement, it is mentioned that only a sum of Rs.50,000/- is paid as an advance and the balance Rs.4,00,000/- has to be paid within one year from the date of the same and the written statement filed contrary to the same is wrong and the sale agreement reflected the correct fact. In his chief examination, he had answered that he knew about the mortgage of the property. In his cross-examination, he has answered that even before the registration of the Power of Attorney document, the dues of the society have been paid. Similarly, another witness to the documents, namely one Lakshmikanthan, who was examined as P.W.3 categorically deposed that even though the sale agreement was registered on the same day of registration of the Power of Attorney, the plaintiffs did not know the said fact. Further, he also admits that the value of the property will be Rs.15,00,000/- as on the date of registration of the sale agreement and that only a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid as an advance to the first defendant. The scribe, who prepared the Power of Attorney as well as the sale agreement and the sale deed, admits that he did not know about the cash transaction as per the sale agreement and the sale deed. As per the evidence of P.W.5, Shanmugam, he gave a receipt for discharge of loan on 15.07.2008 itself. Further, it can be seen that as per Exs.B-4 to B-6, a total sum of Rs.6,17,233/- is the total sum which is paid. The PW-1 has explained the same in his evidence that a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid by the first defendant and the plaintiffs paid the balance amount. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs have discharged their onus in proving that the Power of Attorney was executed only as a security and except for payment for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards payment of the loan, there was no other sum which passed on as consideration. In this regard, it is the defendants' case that the second defendant entered into a sale agreement on the same day. It is their pleading that the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid on the same day and the balance Rs.50,000/- was paid on the date of execution of the sale deed. The same is ex facie false. The sale agreement itself reads that only a sum of Rs.50,000/- is paid on the date of agreement and the balance of Rs.4,00,000/- has to be paid within a period of one year. In this background, the second defendant did not even get into the box. Even the husband of the second defendant, who was examined as P.W.2, never spoke about the total sale consideration and did not even, for the sake of formality, say that they were bonafide purchasers for value. Even though he spoke about the signing of documents and the writing of documents in his chiefexamination and his cross-examination, he has consciously avoided speaking about paying of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- which is mentioned as sale consideration for the sale deed. He did not also speak that he paid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the first defendant so as to enable the repayment of the loan to the society. As a matter of fact, as per their case in the written statement for payment of the loan dues only, the plaintiffs executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant. It can be seen from the evidence that on 15.08.2007 itself i.e., at the time of registering Power of Attorney, the entire dues have been paid. If the second defendant had paid the amount, the same would have been duly mentioned in the sale agreement. As a matter of fact, for the first time in the proof affidavit, the first defendant, who was the sole witness on behalf of the defendants, mentions that the total sale consideration is Rs.14,00,000/- and he had paid a sum of Rs.6,17,233/- to the society and paid the balance of Rs.7,82,767/- as cash. Thus, the same directly runs counter to their written statement. Even in the contradictory version in the proof affidavit, it was further mentioned that for the payment of the said amount, receipt was taken from the plaintiffs in Ex.B-8. A perusal of Ex.B-8, it would be clear that even in Ex.B-8, the total sale consideration is not mentioned. There is no date in Ex.B-8. Thus, on a cumulative reading of the entire evidence, it can be seen that there are two shortcomings in the plaintiffs case : (a) PW-1s deposition that they did not know the contents of the power of attorney is an embellishment as the same is duly executed and possession was also handed over; (b) there was no categorical me Rs. 4,50,000/- was paid by the first defendant and the balance was paid by the plaintiffs. Except the same, in all other respects the plaintiff's case is believable and is not discreted and the corroborating circumstances and the evidence of independent witnesses, PW-2 to PW-5 fairly probabalise the case of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the entire case of the defendants is a bundle of lies.

14. The learned Senior Counsel would urge that the weakness in the defendants' case should not entitle the plaintiffs with the decree. It is not a case of 'weakness' but one of patent falsehood. When the defendants have pleaded that they have purchased the property, the first defendant, being only the Power of Attorney, the second defendant, being the purchaser, who is supposed to defend the sale deed and her possession of the property, did not even deem fit to get into the box or let in any evidence. She had not specifically taken any stand that she had paid the sale consideration to the first defendant and that if the same is not paid to the plaintiff's she will not be liable for the same. In fact she had joined the first defendant in all endeavours, including filing of the written statement and filing this appeal. No any anxiety is shown even by her husband who was examined as PW-2. He constantly uses the word phrases, 'written in the name of', 'agreed' etc and a reading of his evidence itself, wherein he admitted the property was worth 15 lakhs as on date of agreement, it can be categorically seen that the transaction is only a loan transaction and the second defendant is only a sham and nominal purchaser, arranged by the first defendant so as to have hold on the property.

15. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that since there is a valid power and the sale deed is duly executed, it cannot be termed as void and voidable and Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act contemplates relief only for void and voidable documents. In this regard, it is useful to extract Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act which reads as follows:-

" 31. When cancellation may be ordered.—

(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation."

16. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that when there is no coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation and when the power is valid, the sale deed cannot be termed as void. However, I am unable to agree with the said submissions. This is a case where I have already found that the sale deed is executed without consideration and therefore, any agreement without consideration is void as per Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act. In this regard, unless and otherwise there is valid sale consideration, it cannot be a 'sale' within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. etc., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1097 in paragraph No.17, which reads as follows:-

“ 17.Hence, a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property.“

17. Even otherwise, on a cumulative reading of the evidence of D.W.1, the written statement, the sale agreement and the sale deed, it can be seen that the action of the defendants 1 and 2 is in tandem and connivance in concealing the fact of the sale agreement on the same day of the Power of Attorney and thereafter, the execution of the sale deed, which will squarely fall within the definition of fraud as per Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act and the sale transaction is also vitiated by fraud and therefore is void. Thus, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel that no ground is made out for grant of relief under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is without any substance.

18. As far as the plea of delay is concerned, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that he has parted with the possession of the property and only when he was in position to repay the entire principle amount, when he confronted the first defendant, the first defendant shoved him away with the copy of the sale deed and thereafter the suit is filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was undue delay or any laches in filing suit. But, in a case of this nature, once the Court finds that the entire transaction was only for a loan and when the plaintiff has admitted that he has yet to pay principal amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, the Trial Court ought not to have simply decreed the suit without making provision for the first defendant to realise the amount. In this case, the second defendant has absolutely no equity as she neither got into the box nor her husband even claimed about the sale consideration or being a bonafide purchaser, inspite of examined by the plaintiffs and her entire written statement is absolute falsehood. But, in the conspectus of the present facts of the case, the relief has to be appropriately moulded so as to grant the first defendant the sum due to him being a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, as found supra. The first defendant is also entitled to interest, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall be 9% per annum from 15.08.2007 till the date of repayment. For rendering substantial justice as between the parties, this Court is entitled to mould the relief. (J.P.Builders and Anr. Vs. A.Ramadas Rao and Anr.(2011) 1 SCC 429 [LQ/SC/2010/1266] - Paragraph No.67).

19. This apart, the relief of cancellation of Power of Attorney granted by the Trial Court is also not in accordance with law as the cancellation of the Power of Attorney has to be done by the party himself. In this case, the deed of cancellation of Power of Attorney has already been executed. Therefore, the relief of cancellation of Power of Attorney granted by the Trial Court is also not in order.

20. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the suit ought to have been valued as per Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and not under Section 25 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 is again without any further effect because even as per Section 40 of the Act, the Court Fee to be paid as to the value of the subject matter. In this case, even though the relief (3), the Court fee is paid under Section 25 (d), in respect of relief (a) the entire property is valued at Rs.13,50,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.1,01,250.50 ps is paid. The further contention that the property is worth about Rs.25,00,000/- cannot be countenanced that even as per the second defendant she had made improvements in the first floor of the house and that she had spent Rs.15,00,000/- for the same and thereafter, the property is claimed to be of Rs.25,00,000/- value. Thus, the same is unacceptable on the face of it. Therefore, I hold that the submission regarding improper payment of court fee as without any substance.

I. Answers to the Issues :

21. In view of my above findings, I answer the issue No.1, framed by the Trial Court that the Power of Attorney was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the first defendant and the same was executed as a security and in default of the payment of the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest to be payable by the plaintiffs within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Power of Attorney would be valid with rights to execute the sale deed. I answer the issue No.2 that upon payment of above said sum, the sale deed will not be binding on the plaintiffs. Upon payment of the aforesaid sum, the plaintiffs will be entitled for the relief of declaration as well as the recovery of possession and permanent injunction and accordingly, issue Nos.4 to 6 are answered. I answer the issue No.7 that in view of the cancellation of power, there is no necessity to further cancel the Power of Attorney by the Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I answer the issue No.8 that upon payment of the amount aforesaid, the plaintiffs will be entitled for the declaration that the sale deed, dated 05.09.2008 as null and void and the issue No.9 also stands answered accordingly.

J. The Result :

22. In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed on the following terms:-

(i) The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri in O.S.No.92 of 2011 is modified on the following terms:-

(a) The suit in respect of the relief No.4 of cancellation of Power of Attorney be and hereby dismissed;

(b) The plaintiffs shall pay to the first defendant a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- with further interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.08.2007 till the date of payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this decree;

(c) Upon such payment, it is declared that :

(1) the second plaintiff is the owner of the suit property;

(2) the defendants shall hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs;

(3) the defendants or any person claiming through them shall not trespass into the suit property and shall not create any encumbrance in favour of any third party;

(4) the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, dated 05.09.2008 registered as Doct.No.3051/8 is declared as null and void;

(ii) In default of payment of the amount mentioned in the direction (i)(b) stated above, the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri shall stand dismissed;

(iii) The parties to bear their respective costs.