Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Present appeals were heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment for the reason that both the suits were filed by the same plaintiff Smt. Vidyavati Singh seeking cancellation of power of attorney, consequent sale deeds and for recovery of possession as also for permanent injunction against two different defendants. It is also for the reason that the power of attorney holder who has executed the sale deed is also one and the same and the materials placed before the trail Court were also similar in nature. There being some differences in the evidence of purchasers who are different in both the suits, only this part dealing with the evidence of purchaser will be dealt with separately.

First Appeal No.161 of 2013 :

2. The trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff’s/appellant’s suit for declaration of the power of attorney dated 30-7-2002 and the sale deed dated 13-8-2003 as null, void & inoperative. The power of attorney was purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of her son defendant No.2-Rajkishor Singh where as the sale deed was executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1-Harvinder Singh. By amending the plaint, the plaintiff also prayed that the subsequent sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.4-Nanesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. be also declared null, void & inoperative. It was also prayed that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the defendant No.5-Naya Raipur Development Authority for acquisition of the suit land or part thereof be also declared null, void & inoperative. The plaintiff further prayed for recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants No.1, 4 & 5.

3. For brevity, the defendant No.1-Harvinder Singh shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the first purchaser'; similarly defendant No.2-Rajkishor Singh shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the power of attorney holder'; No.4- Nanesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the subsequent purchaser'; and No.5-Naya Raipur Development Authority shall be hereinafter referred as ‘the NRDA’.

4. The plaintiff averred that she owns land admeasuring 12.320 hectares at village Barauda, Patwari Halka 72/15, R.I. Circle Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, out of which the suit pertains to land bearing khasra No.71 (area 0.580 hectares); khasra No.403 (area 0.630 hectares); khasra No.941 (area 5.340 hectares) & khasra No.951 (area 0.040 hectares) total area 6.590 hectares, which is referred in the plaint as suit land. According to the plaintiff, she has never executed any power of attorney in favour of her son, the defendant No.2, therefore, the power of attorney dated 30-7-2002 is a fabricated and concocted document, on the basis of which the power of attorney holder has sold the suit land in favour of the first purchaser for a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- and executed the registered sale deed on 13-8-2003, for which the power of attorney holder has no authority or right to execute such sale deed. The plaintiff specifically and categorically stated that the power of attorney is not signed by the plaintiff nor she has purchased the non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- on which the power of attorney is written. She has never appeared and singed on the power of attorney before the Notary Alok Kumar Sharma. The plaintiff further averred that mutation of the name of the first purchaser and thereafter, the subsequent purchaser and the NRDA is also illegal as no title has passed in favour of the first purchaser on the basis of forged power of attorney and illegal sale deed. According to the plaintiff, the first purchaser executed the sale deed in favour of the subsequent purchaser, despite there being an order of temporary injunction. Similarly, the NRDA has acquired the land and paid compensation to the first purchaser or the subsequent purchaser despite the interim order of the trial Court.

5. The defendants filed their separate written statements.