RAM JATAN RAI Vs. SITA RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the First Appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree dated 05.06.2010 passed by the learned 3rd Subordinate Judge, Danapur in Title Suit No.96 of 2008/129 of 2010, both the First Appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff Dr. Sita Ram Singh filed the aforesaid suit through his Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Ranjan Kumar for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the Schedule-5 property and for declaration that the alleged Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2005 and the registered sale deeds executed on 27.06.2007 and 23.05.2008 pursuant to the said Power of Attorney are fraudulent, collusive, void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff regarding the property detailed in Schedule-5 of the plaint. The plaintiff also prayed for injunction and cost of the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent Dr. Sita Ram Singh claimed the aforesaid relief on the allegation that the suit property belonged to one Chandrika Ram. He had purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 10.07.1965. He died and then his widow, sons and daughters sold the property by registered sale deeds to different purchasers in the year 1981, including the plaintiff Dr. Sita Ram Singh. The plaintiff sold 15 decimals land out of Schedule-4 property to Smt. Nilima Rai and the rest of the property remained with the plaintiff, which is detailed in Schedule-5 of the plaint. The plaintiff is doctor in profession and resides at United Kingdom. He executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Ranjan Kumar for looking after the property on 24.05.2007. In September, 2007 the said Power of Attorney Holder Ranjan Kumar heard that Ram Jatan Rai is trying to sell the suit property alleging that he is the Power of Attorney Holder of Dr. Sita Ram Singh. Ranjan Kumar went to the Registry Office and got the information about the socalled fraudulent and fabricated Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2005. Thereafter he gave the necessary information to the Circle Officer and the Registry Office and also got news printed in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran'. He informed the plaintiff about this fraudulent and fabricated Power of Attorney. The plaintiff came to know about the fabrication after obtaining the certified copy of the Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2005.