ORDER

Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. Pursuant to notice issued on November 22, 1988, Mr. Uma Dutta had appeared for the respondent. Subsequently, he reported on January 6, 1995 that he was instructed not to appear in the matter. He sought for and was granted permission to withdraw from the case. Thereafter, none appeared for the respondent. Initially, the case was adjourned since consequent upon reference doubting correctness of Mithilesh Kumar & Anr. v. Prem Behari Khare1, decision by a three-Judge Bench was awaited. The controversy is no longer res judicata. In view of the judgment of three-Judge Bench in R. Rajagopala Reddy v. Padmini Chandrashekharan2, wherein it was held that the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act is prospective in operation, the question in this case is : whether the sale of the appellant s land to the wife of the second respondent, Ram Mehrar, holder of power of attorney of the appellant is valid in law?

3. It is seen that Ram Mehrar had general power of attorney not only to engage a counsel and conduct litigation on behalf of the appellant, but can also mortgage, alienate or transfer possession of the agricultural land to anyone whosoever after obtaining