1. Heard Dr. Saraf, learned Counsel for the Appellants-Applicants, and Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. This Second Appeal takes an exception to the 'Judgment and Decree' dated 26th April 2018 passed by the District Judge-4, Thane, in Civil Appeal No.195 of 2015, which was preferred against the 'Judgment and Decree' dated 21st August 2015 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, in Special Civil Suit No.82 of 2011.

3. The said Suit was preferred by Respondent No.1 herein for a declaration that, the 'Power of Attorney' purported to be executed in the month of May, 2008 is illegal and bad in law, as the same was obtained by the Appellants with fraud and false representation. A further declaration was also sought that, the alleged 'Gift Deed' dated 26th May 2008, executed by Appellant No.1 herein in favour of Appellant No.2-the Original Defendant No.2 on the basis of the said 'Power of Attorney', is also illegal and, therefore, it should be cancelled and both the Appellants, i.e. Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2, be directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to Respondent No.1.

4. The facts, which were averred in the plaint are to the effect that, Appellant No.1 is the elder brother of Respondent No.1. He is 'Doctor' by profession and practices at Vashi, New Bombay. As per the case of Respondent No.1, he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Flat No.108, on the 1st Floor, in Anand Sagar Co-operative Housing Society at Vashi, New Bombay. In or about 1986-87, Appellant No.1 approached Respondent No.1 with a request to use the said property for carrying on his medical practice. Since Appellant No.1 is the owner of the three flats/properties, which are adjoining to the said flat, and considering the blood relation between the parties, Respondent No.1 had handed over possession of the said flat to Appellant No.1 to use the same for carrying on his medical practice. It was done in good faith, with no monthly or yearly compensation and also without any security receipt/deposit. Accordingly, Appellant No.1 commenced his medical practice in the said property.

5. In the month of May, 2008, Appellant No.1 approached Respondent No.1 with a false representation that, as he is facing some technical problems, as Defendant No.3-the Co-operative Society, in which the suit flat is situate, requires certain documents to be complied with, so that he can run his medical practice in the suit flat smoothly. On the basis of the said documents, it was represented that, Appellant No.1 will enter his name in the record of Defendant No.3-Society, so that the Society will not create any obstacles in carrying on his medical practice in the suit property. Respondent No.1, accordingly, signed the document, which, later on, he came to know was the 'Power of Attorney'. On the basis of the said 'Power of Attorney', Appellant No.1 has executed the 'Gift Deed' of the suit property in favour of his son Piyush i.e. Defendant No.2. Only when the said fact came to the knowledge of Respondent No.1, he was constrained to file this Suit.

6. This Suit came to be resisted by the Appellants herein contending inter alia that, since purchase of the suit property in the name of Respondent No.1, Appellant No.1 is in possession thereof and he has maintained the same. Respondent No.1 has not contributed anything for the suit property till date. Conversely, Respondent No.1 has put Appellant No.1 in possession of the suit property since the year 1986 and on the basis of the 'Power of Attorney', voluntarily executed by Respondent No.1, Appellant No.1 was authorized to execute the 'Gift Deed' of the suit property in favour of his son Piyush i.e. Defendant No.2. Accordingly, the 'Gift Deed' executed by Appellant No.1 is legal, valid and proper. Therefore, the Suit filed by Respondent No.1 for possession and for declaration needs to be dismissed.

7. In support of their respective contentions, both the parties h