( 1 ) THE appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 62 of 1984 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), mangalore. The Trial Court disposed of the suits O. S. Nos. 62 of 1984 and 265 of 1983 by recording common evidence and common judgment.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 62 of 1984 filed for declaration that the sale deeds Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 executed by the first defendant are null and void and seek consequential relief of possession free from all encumbrances. The 4th defendant filed a separate suit O. S. No. 265 of 1983 against the second defendant for the relief of specific performance in respect of the property, which is a subject-matter of O. S. No. 62 of 1984.

( 3 ) THE appellant in this proceeding will be referred to as plaintiff and the respondents would be referred to as defendants for convenient discussion.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the suit properties belonged to his mother Mrs. Aquis Pinto. After her demise, the plaintiff along with his father (defendant 5), sister (defendant 6) and brothers (defendants 7 to 9) succeeded to the property and they are all co-owners of the property. The suit property was mortgaged. The mortgagee had filed a suit in O. S. No. 22 of 1973 for recovery of the mortgage amount. The suit was decreed, the suit property was brought to sale for realisation of the decreetal debt.

( 5 ) THE first defendant is an Advocate, who defended the interests of the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 7 in O. S. No. 22 of 1973. Mrs. Aquis pinto found it difficult to manage the property, since her husband and children were all scattered and living at different places. Therefore, the 1st defendant was requested to negotiate and sell the property to third parties to avoid Court sale. The defendant 5 and defendants 7 and 8 executed the GPA in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant entered into an agreement with defendants 2 and 3. They insisted that the 1st defendant had to produce the powers of attorney of all the co- owners. Pursuant to which the plaintiff who is residing at Doha in quotar executed power of attorney at Ex. D. 57 and the 6th defendant residing at Bombay executed power of attorney Ex. D. 56 in favour of the 1st defendant. The Ex. D. 57, power of attorney is prepared at Doha and sent by post to the first defendant. On the basis of powers of attorney the sale deeds Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 are executed.

( 6 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the powers of attorney Exs. D. 56 and D. 57 authorised the first defendant to sell only Item No. 1 of the 'a' schedule and not Item No. 2 of the 'a' Schedule. The powers of attorney ex. D. 56 and Ex. D. 57 are tampered and interpolated to include Item no. 2 of the suit schedule. The 2nd defendant was aware of the forgery when he purchased the property. Therefore, it is contended that the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 on the basis of forged power of attorney is null and void and the first defendant would not get any legal authority to effect of sale on the strength of the forged documents. It is further contended that the first defendant has misappropriated the sale consideration and has not accounted for the same to the plaintiff and other co-owners.

( 7 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4 contested the case, defendant 5 died immediately after filing of the suit and he had not filed the written statement. The defendants 6 to 9 support the case of the plaintiff.

( 8 ) BEFORE filing of the suit, the second defendant entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a portion of the 'a' Schedule property. In that connection the 4th defendant filed a suit against the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 265 of 1983 seeking specific performance of the contract. The suit is decreed. The execution proceedings are taken out by the 4th defendant, and the sale deed is obtained through Court. The plaintiff and other defendants are not parties in O. S. No. 265 of 1983