BAHORAN Vs. BHEEMSEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.20-A/2011 whereby, the trial Court has dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for declaration of title and confirmation of their joint possession. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs have instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and confirmation of their joint possession with regard to the property in question bearing Khasra No.418 admeasuring 1.26 acres (0.510 hectares) situated at Mauza, Bodri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur and alternatively claimed for possession from Defendants No.3 &4. According to the Plaintiffs, the alleged suit property was their ancestral property and Defendant No.1-Bheemsen (since deceased now represented by his legal representatives namely Smt Kali Bai and others), who was their brother, had obtained a forged and fabricated deed of power-of-attorney without their wishes and knowledge and executed a registered deed of sale on 10.05.2005 along with Defendant No.2-Titri Bai, who is the widow of their another brother Sahoran in favour of Defendant No.3-Vinod Kumar Jain through his powerof-attorney holder namely Devendra Kumar Jain, Defendant No.4. It is pleaded further that after knowing the said fact, a search was made before the concerned patwari where they came to know that the alleged ancestral property was recorded in the name of Defendant Vinod Kumar Jain, therefore, they have been compelled to institute the suit in the instant natur Shiv Prasad Versus Ritesh Kumare.

(3.) Defendants No.3 and 4 have contested the claim submitting inter alia that by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 10.05.2005, Defendant No.3 has acquired his valid right, title and interest over the property in question and his name is accordingly recorded in the revenue papers as well. It is pleaded further that as the alleged sale was executed by Defendant No.1-Bheemsen along with said Titri Bai based upon the duly executed power-of-attorney as executed by the Plaintiffs and therefore, the claim, as made, deserves to be dismissed.