DUKHI YADAV Vs. ROHIN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal, which is directed against a judgment of reversal, the trial Court having decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over 19 kathas and 1 1/2 dhurs of land described in Schedule-I to the plaint.

(2.) Relevant facts for disposal of the limited contentions raised before this Court may be stated as follows: Undisputedly, one Mosst. Mahabati Oevi (defendant No. 2) is the owner of the suit property described in Schedule-I to the plaint. On 9-8-1957, she executed a power of Attorney (Exhibit-1) in favour of her relation Satrughan Prasad Singh (defendant No. 3) authorising him, inter alia, to execute deeds in respect of her immovable properties on her behalf. Defendaet No. 3, in his capacity as mokhtar-e-aam of defendant No. 2 executed the sale deed (Exhibit-4) dated 14-5-1966 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 3000/- transferring the suit land to him. Rs. 1000/- out of the consideration money was paid before the Registrar at the time of registration, Rs. 1000/- was paid at the time of taquabajul badlan, Rs. 500/- was adjusted towards the dues of a handnote (Exhibit-2) and Rs. 500/- was paid at the time of agreement for sale (Exhibit-3). According to the plaintiff, he came in possession of the suit land, got his name mutated on 3-13-1966 and obtained the rent receipts. There was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the suit land between the plaintiff and Rohin Mandal defendant No. 1 (first party), who alone contested the suit, defendants 2 and 3 having been arrayed as defendants 2nd party. This proceeding was decided in favour of defendant No. 1 leading to the filing of the instant suit by the plaintiff with an alternative prayer for a decree of Rs. 3000/- against the defendants 2nd party.

(3.) One of the pleas raised by defendant No. 1 was that the power of attorney (Exhibit-1) was got executed by defendant No. 3 by practising fraud on defendant No. 1, that the power of attorney did not authorise defendent No. 3 to execute sale deed on her behalf and that the sale deed Ex-hibit-4 was an illegal and sham transaction. Defendant No. 2 was said to have executed Exhibit 'C' dated 25-5-1966 can-celling the power of attorney and was further said to have executed the sale deed Exhibit-'A' dated 25-5-1966 in respect of the suit property in his (defendant No. 1) favour for consideration and he came in possession thereof.