SATYA PRAKASH MAHANA Vs. RABIKANTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals arise out of order dated 15.3.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in I.A. No.19 of 2014 arising out of C.S. No.72 of 2014 directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land till disposal of the Civil Suit. The appellants in F.A.O. No.161 of 2014 are the Defendants-O.Ps. before the trial court. They have sgught for setting aside the impugned order of status quo so that they can raise construction over the suit property for the development of which they have spent a huge amount. In F.A.O. No.370 of 2014 the appellants are the plaintiffspetitioners before the trial court. Being aggrieved by some observation made by the learned trial court on the factum of possession over the suit land made in favour of the Defendants, they have preferred the appeal to expunge/set aside such observation made in the impugned order.

(2.) The suit is for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession and to declare Registered Sale Deeds dated 28.1.2013 and 25.3.2013 as null and void. According to the Plaintiffs-appellants, on 11.3.2007 Jagananth Das and 5 others, the owners of the suit land, executed one irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of one Raj Kishore Singh authorizing him, inter alia, to sell the properties mentioned in the schedule of the Power of Attorney. Prior to execution of the Power of Attorney the Principals had received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from said Raj Kishore Singh on 8.3.2007 and on the same day an agreement for sale of the land covered under the said Power of Attorney was also entered into between the Principals and said Raj Kishore Singh. On 16.10.2012 the Power of Attorney holder executed Registered Sale Deed No.11261203773 dated 16.10.2012 alienating the suit land measuring Ac.1.08 appertaining to Plot Nos.155, 599 and 706 under Khata No.185 of Mouza Raghunathpur, in the district of Mayurbhanj in favour of the plaintiffs (his own sons) receiving consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and delivered possession of the properties to the plaintiffs. Since then the plaintiffs have been in possession of the properties they have purchased under the Sale Deed. However, the Defendant Nos.8 to 10 (the appellants in F.A.O. No.161 of 2014 and respondents in F.A.O. No.370 of 2014) are trying to enter into the land purchased by the Plaintiffs claiming to have purchased the same from Defendant Nos.1 to 7 under three Registered Sale Deeds. They have also stacked building materials for making construction over the suit property. Therefore, the Plaintiffs made an application for ad interim injunction restraining Defendant Nos.8 to 10 from alienating the suit properties as well as disturbing the plaintiffs' possession till disposal of the suit.

(3.) D.8 to 9 who are O.Ps. in the I.A. filed objection contending, inter alia, that on account of death of one of the Principals who had executed the Power of Attorney, the said power stood revoked by operation of law. Therefore, the Power of Attorney holder could not have transferred the suit properties in favour of his own sons who are the plaintiffs-petitioners before the learned trial court and such sale transaction is invalid. It is further contended that the true owners of the suit property have sold the suit land under Registered Sale Deeds executed in favour of D.8 to 10. According to these Defendants the plaintiffs' claim of right, title and interest on the basis of Sale Deed executed by the Power of Attorney holder is not sustainable in law.