Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant in F.A. No.119 of 2010 :Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey and Ms Sangita Sharma, Advocates with him.
For the appellant in F.A. No.127 of 2010 :Mr. Dhruv Narayan, Sr. Advocate., Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate with him.
For the respondents in both the First Appeals:Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate., Mr. Ganga Sharan Sharma and Mr. Sanjeet Kr. Singh, Advocates with him.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The main issue in the case was whether the Power of Attorney (PoA) and subsequent sale deeds were forged, fabricated, or validly executed by the plaintiff, Dr. Sita Ram Singh (!) (!) .

2. The court found that the thumb impression, signature, and photograph on the disputed Power of Attorney did not belong to Dr. Sita Ram Singh, indicating that the document was forged and fabricated. Expert comparison of thumb impressions and signatures supported this conclusion (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court held that the Power of Attorney was void ab initio, as it was forged, and therefore, the sale deeds executed pursuant to it did not confer any title or rights to the purchasers (!) (!) .

4. The evidence included expert reports, which the court accepted as reliable and admissible, and the court exercised its jurisdiction under relevant provisions to compare disputed writings and photographs without necessarily relying on expert testimony when differences are apparent (!) (!) (!) .

5. The court noted that the photograph pasted on the Power of Attorney was not of the plaintiff, and the signature was not of Dr. Sita Ram Singh, reinforcing the conclusion of forgery (!) (!) .

6. The court emphasized that the registration of the Power of Attorney at the specified registry was improper, given the address details and the applicable registration laws, further supporting the fraudulent nature of the document (!) .

7. The court dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants, reaffirming the trial court's decision that the Power of Attorney was forged, and consequently, the sale deeds were invalid. The costs were awarded to the plaintiff (!) .

8. Additional evidence, such as the alleged payment receipt, was deemed inadmissible because it was not pleaded in the written statement and was produced without proper foundation (!) .

9. The court clarified that the defendant purchasers did not acquire any rights or title based on the forged Power of Attorney, and therefore, their sale deeds were ineffective (!) .

10. The court rejected the defendants’ request for further expert examination or additional evidence, citing procedural rules and the sufficiency of the existing evidence to decide the case (!) (!) .

These points summarize the court's findings, legal reasoning, and final decision regarding the forgery of the Power of Attorney and its impact on the property rights involved.