JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 5-10-2016 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in civil suit No.227-A/2015 whereby the suit was dismissed. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs.

2. The suit was filed by four sisters namely; Smt. Chameli Koushik, Smt. Shanti Devi Bhardwaj, Smt. Usha Bai Narmada & Smt. Sandhya Koushil against one Smt. Koushilya Bai Patel, defendant No.1, who had purchased the property from the defendant No.2 Om Prakash Goutam, brother of the plaintiffs.

3. Case of the plaintiffs was that they are the joint owners of land bearing khasra No.184 admeasuring 5.90 acres situated at village Nirtu, PH No.33, RI Circle Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur. According to the plaintiffs, the said land was purchased by the defendant No.1 on the basis of forged power of attorney dated 9-2-2015 alleged to have been executed by four sisters (plaintiffs) in favour of brother (defendant No.2). The suit was filed to declare the said sale deed as nullity and possession was also claimed for from the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs further stated that they are in possession of the land and were doing the agricultural activities on the said land. According to the plaintiffs, on the power of attorney dated 9-2-2015 photographs of some other persons were affixed other than the plaintiffs by the defendant No.2 and the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs stated that they have never executed any power of attorney in favour of their brother/defendant No.2. The plaintiffs also stated that while they sowed the crop over the suit land, in the month of August, 2015 the defendant No.1 took over the land forcibly on the basis of sale deed dated 11-3-2015 (Ex.P/1).

4. The defendants No.1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. Subsequently, they proceeded ex parte. The defendant No.1 has stated that she is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. She also stated that after payment of sale consideration, she came into possession, therefore, the suit be dismissed.

5. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence came to a finding that the sale deed executed by the brother (defendant No.2) in favour of the defendant No.1 (purchaser) on the basis of forged power of attorney would be invalid in respect of share held by the plaintiffs (sisters), meaning thereby the sale of share of defendant No.2 was held to be valid.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is perverse inasmuch as the trial Court came to a finding that the sale deed was executed by the brother on the basis of forged power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the sisters in his favour, therefore, the entire sale deed would go. He would further submit that even otherwise, the purchaser cannot be put in possession of the suit property in its entirety and only recourse left to the defendant No.1 (purchaser) was to file a suit for partition when joint property was purchased by her as no partition has ever taken place between the brother and sisters.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, per contra, would submit that in any case the extent of share which has been sold by the brother cannot be said to be invalid and he has vested right to sell his share of property. He would further submit that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is well merited, which do not call for call for any interference.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record.

9. Ex.P/1 is the sale deed. Om Prakash (defendant No.2), brother of the plaintiffs, on the basis of power of attorney by the plaintiffs, has shown them as seller and executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Said sale deed contains a document Form B-1, which shows that the subject property bearing khasra No.184 was held b