GITA DEB Vs. GAURI DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Madan Gopal Shil Karmakar along with his daughter Gouri Das and one Tridib Dey fled a suit against the defendant (present appellant) Gita Deb, Dilip Kumar Deb, Manik Lal Das and Murari Mohan Das the last two being the sons of Madan Gopal Shil Karmakar. It is not disputed that Madan Gopal Shil Karmakar was the owner of the schedule land. He fled the suit claiming that he had sold portion of the suit land at Serial plot No. 1 to his daughter Gita Deb and Serial plot No. 2 of the suit land to plaintiff No. 2 Tridib Dey along with other lands vide two separate sale deeds dated 21.03.1998. According to him, he put the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 in possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff further is that the defendant 1 and 2 being husband and wife tried to forcibly take possession of the suit land on the strength of sale deeds purported to have been executed by the defendants 3 and 4 (sons of the plaintiff No. 1) in favour of the defendant No. 1 Gita Deb on the strength of some Power of Attorneys purported to have been executed at Gauhati on 28.08.1996 by plaintiff No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 & 4. It is alleged that on the basis of this Power of Attorney defendant No. 4 executed one sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 29.11.1996 and defendant No. 3 executed another sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on the same date. The case of the plaintiff is that he was not aware about these sale deeds or the Power of Attorney. His case is that this Power of Attorney is totally forged and he has no knowledge of the same.

(2.) IT is further the case of the plaintiff that some dispute arose between defendant 3 and 4 with regard to the manner in which the money of these sale deeds was to be divided and then the plaintiff came to know about the forged Power of Attorney and he accordingly lodged a criminal case against the defendants at P.S. Dharmanagar and finally GR Case 326 of 1999 was registered. The case of the plaintiff is that the Power of Attorney was sent for examination on the hand writing expert. The defendants contested the suit and raised a number of objections. They pleaded that the suit was not within limitation. It was also pleaded that the suit as fled for declaration and possession was not maintainable without first getting the sale deeds and Power of Attorney set aside. The learned trial court framed the following issues in the suit:

(3.) WHETHER the sale deeds bearing Nos. 1 -3680 dated 29.11.96, 1 -3679 dated 29.11.96 are fraudulent and in -effective?