JUDGMENT :

1. By this Appeal, the original defendants are before this Court challenging Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2004, passed by the Court of First Adhoc Additional District Judge, Panaji, whereby, Regular Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2004, filed by the original Plaintiffs stood allowed.

2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the parties are inter se related to each other. One Manohar Bordekar i.e. the original Plaintiff no.3, who was Respondent no.3 in the present Appeal and later deleted upon his death, was married to Mandakini Bordekar. They had three children i.e. the Appellant no.1, the Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.4. The Appellant no.2 is the husband of Appellant no. 1 and Respondent no.5 is the husband of Respondent no.4. The said Mandakini Bordekar purchased a property comprising two plots surveyed under nos. 243/5 and 244/22 admeasuring 600 square metres and 50 square metres respectively. Property at survey no. 244/22 was acquired for construction of public road and the present litigation concerns the residential house property in survey no. 243/5. The Appellants claimed that the said Mandakini Bordekar, wife of Manohar Bordekar, i.e. the father of Appellant no.1, executed Will Deed dated 03.03.1981, bequeathing the property in favour of the Appellants. It was further claimed that a Gift Deed dated 24.11.1982, was also executed by him, in respect of part of the suit property in favour of Appellant no.2. The original Plaintiffs i.e. the Respondents herein disputed execution of the Will Deed as well as the Gift Deed. They also disputed execution of a Sale Deed dated 06.01.1994, purportedly executed by Manohar Bordekar, whereby he had allegedly sold his undivided share in the suit property in favour of the Appellant no.2 i.e. his son-in-law. The aforesaid Sale Deed was alleged to have been executed through a Power of Attorney holder.

3. The Respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Appellants for declaring Will Deed dated 03.03.1981, Gift Deed dated 24.11.1982 and Sale Deed dated 06.01.1994 as null and void. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the Appellants from transferring or alienating the suit property without the intervention of the Respondents. The Appellants filed their written statement and opposed the reliefs claimed by the Respondents. They stood by the validity of the aforesaid documents. The rival parties led evidence in favour of their respective stands.

4. By Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2004, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mapusa, (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court), partly decreed the suit by declaring that the Will Deed dated 03.03.1981 and the Gift Deed dated 24.11.1982, were null and void. The declaration sought by the Respondents with regard to Sale Deed dated 06.01.1994, was rejected.

5. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the Respondents filed Appeal before the Court of First Adhoc Additional District Judge, Panaji, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court). It is an admitted position that the Appellants did not challenge the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. As a consequence, the only area of dispute before the Appellate Court was the validity of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 06.01.1994.

6. The Appellate Court took into consideration the evidence and material on record and found that the Appellants claimed that the Sale Deed was executed on the strength of a Power of Attorney executed by Manohar Bordekar i.e. original Plaintiff no.3. The said Manohar Bordekar, who also deposed as Pw.2 before the Trial Court, refuted execution of any such Power of Attorney and claimed that the Appellant no.1, i.e. his daughter, had taken his signatures on certain blank papers, which may have been misused for preparing the Power of Attorney. The Appellate Court concluded that, in these circumstances, it was for the Appellants to have produced the Power of Attorney on record in order to substant