1. The Plaintiffs are mother and three children. They have entered into an agreement for sale with Defendant No.1 on 3rd December 1988. On the date of the execution of the agreement Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 were minors. Their mother Plaintiff No.1 signed the agreement on behalf of herself and her minor children. Plaintiff No.2 has signed for herself. The consideration under the agreement was Rs.2.5 lakhs. Rs.1 lakh has been admittedly paid. The sale was to be completed within one month from the date the title was clear by the permission of the competent authority and the permission of the Court was obtained for sale of the minors' share. An Irrevocable General Power of Attorney was also executed similarly by the Plaintiffs along with the agreement for sale.

2. The execution of both these documents is admitted by all parties.

3. The Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 have also executed a declaration and indemnity on 6th December 1989 showing the possession of the property was handed over to Defendant No.1 and that they had not created any mortgage or lien or entered into any other transaction, but that they had given power of attorney as a part of the completion of the transaction and that they had received Rs.2.50 lakhs which was the consideration and indemnified Defendant No.1 against any claim.

4. It is the Plaintiffs' case that thereafter only in the year 2007 the Defendants sent to the Plaintiffs a draft Deed of Conveyance and draft Irrevocable General Power of Attorney to be executed along with a declaration-cum-indemnity bond. The Defendants are stated to have sent these by hand delivery. The Defendants have denied this aspect. It is, therefore, merely a oral case of the Plaintiffs that 18 years after the initial execution of the agreement for sale and power of attorney the Defendants sought to obtain the conveyance without having anything in the interregnum.

5. The Plaintiffs have relied upon a copy of a Deed of Conveyance shown to be executed on 20th March 1993, but for which the date in words is shown to be “eightynine”. The Plaintiffs claim that that was merely a draft Deed of Conveyance. The copy annexed to the plaint shows the signatures of the Plaintiffs. The signatures of Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and Defendant No.1 are on pages 1,3,5 & 7 in the margin. Defendant No.1 has signed every page. The parties have signed against the receipt clause also. The receipt clause shows two cheque numbers by which the balance consideration of Rs.1.5 lakhs payable under the agreement for sale is shown to be paid. The cheques are shown to be dated 20th March 1993 they are shown to be drawn on Bombay Mercantile Bank. The name of the Bank, the addresses and the date of the cheques are also handwritten. Prima facie they appear to be in the handwriting of Plaintiff No.2. It is not the Plaintiffs' case that the signatures are forged. It cannot even be so alleged. The number of signatures put on the document makes it very clear.

6. The document also shows it having been stamped in 2007 by the Stamp No. A/1445/2007 on the top of the endorsement of the Collector of stamps.

7. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the consideration under the document is not paid. It is the case of the Defendants that it is. The consideration is receipted in the Deed of Conveyance itself. The Defendants have shown the amount debited to their bank account. The Defendants have, however, not shown that the amounts are credited to the bank account of the Plaintiffs.

8. However, the document remained to be registered. The Defendant No.1 has sought to register a conveyance in February 2007 under a Deed of Confirmation executed by him as a Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiffs under the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs in 1989.

9. It appears that the Plaintiff got information about the execution of the Deed of Conveyance in 2007. The Plaintiffs claim to have taken search of the records of the register and came to learn about the execution of