Judgment

DESAI, J.:-This appeal by certificate granted under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution arises from Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 1952 filed by the appellant against 56 respondents for recovering possession of lands more particularly set out in the Schedule annexed to the plaint, mesne profits, accounts and injunction, which suit was largely dismissed and partly decreed by the trial Court but in appeals bearing A. S. Nos. 252 and 283 of 1960 by the unsuccessful defendants and the plaintiff, respectively, was dismissed as a whole.

2. A brief narration of facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised herein may be set out. Plaintiff-appellant is the son of late Kazim Yar Jung who was a Minister of H. E. H. the Nizam of Hyderabad. The father of the plaintiff obtained grant of certain lands in Rayalamadugu village from the Government of Nizam, the patta having been granted in the name of the plaintiff. At about the time of police action in 1948 when the local conditions in Hyderabad City and State were disturbed, the plaintiff, his father Kazim Yar Jung and his step brother Mustafa found it difficult to even approach their lands and the plaintiff was then contemplating to shift to Pakistan with others. Defendant No. 1 Rami Reddy who was a Police Patel approached the plaintiff and represented that he would manage the affairs of the plaintiff, his brother and father, but that as he was not keeping well a nominal Power of Attorney would have to be granted to defendant no. 34 Uppra Sattayya whereupon the plaintiff, his father and brother jointly executed a Power of Attorney, Ext. P-1 dated 10th April 1949 in favour of defendant No. 34 which was further supplemented by the deed Ext. P-2 dated 20th April 1949. The plaintiff alleged that in Oct. 1949 he came to know that defendants Nos. 1 and 34 were perpetrating fraud when on 25th Oct. 1949 the plaintiff and his brother Mustafa published a notice in the newspapers and the Gazette cancelling the Power of Attorney granted in favour of defendant No. 34, Plaintiff then came to know that defendants Nos. 1 and 34 and other defendants in collusion with each other got transferred the lands of the plaintiff for inadequate or no consideration and that a fraud was perpetrated. The plaintiff further alleged that the Power of Attorney is vague and void and inoperative and would not clothe defendant No. 34 with legal authority to deal with the properties in the manner in which they have been dealt with. At any rate, the Power of Attorney did not clothe defendant No. 34 with the authority to sell the land and, therefore, the purchasers have not acquired any title to the lands purporting to have been sold by defendant No. 34. The plaintiff accordingly sued for possession, mesne profits and accounts from the defendants.

3. Different groups of defendants filed three separate written statements but more or less the contentions raised in the various written statements are identical. The first contention is that the plaintiff was not the full and absolute owner of the suit lands but was a benamidar inasmuch as the lands were granted to the father of the plaintiff who was a Minister in the Nizams Government but the patta was formally taken in the name of the plaintiff who was then a minor. It was also contended that the Power of Attorney, Ext. P-1 with P-2 was legal and valid and binding and it clothed defendant No. 34 with an authority to sell the lands and different parcels of lands have been sold to different defendants for full consideration and the plaintiff was aware of it and is now trying to take an advantage on the basis of a technical plea. There were some other contentions which at this stage are hardly relevant.

4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the full and absolute owner of the suit properties. The Power of Attorney Ext. P-1 was not vitiated by fraud and has clothed defendant No. 34 with the necessary authority to sell the lands and the sale of different parcels of lands i