JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned II Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.91-A/2014 whereby the suit was partly allowed.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaration of title along-with injunction against the respondents. As per the plaintiff, the land of 0.094 hectares bearing Kh.No.20/34 equivalent to 10115 sqft which was earlier numbered as 20/31 20/18 in revenue records was purchased by the appellant by sale deed dated 25.04.1982 and since then the plaintiff claimed that he is in possession and ownership of the said land. It was pleaded that in the year 2003 two persons tried to disturb the possession for which a Civil Suit No.2-A/2009 was filed against Ravindra Kaur and others, which is pending. The plaintiff contended that she is an old lady residing at Indore and since she was tired of litigation as such in respect of sale of remaining of land of Kh.No. 20/34 admeasuring 7800 sqft, she gave a power of attorney to defendant No.2 Satpal Singh Bhatia by registered general power of attorney dated 06.09.2008. During the course of litigation of Civil Suit No.2-A/2009 (Surjieet Kaur Versus Ravinder Kaur & others) a direction was issued for demarcation in respect of part of other land and accordingly when the commissioner's report was filed along-with the copy of sale deed 31.03.2010, for the first time she came to know that defendant/respondent no.2 herein Satpal Singh Bhatia has sold the entire land of 10115 sqft to his mother Smt. Jaspal Kaur Bhatia (since deceased). Thereafter certain police reports were made and cancellation of sale deed was agreed to be done but eventually it was not done. Eventually on 29.05.2014 a notice was served for cancellation of the sale deed. It was further contended that the sale consideration was not paid to the plaintiff /appellant and by the Power of Attorney dated 6.09.2008 only 7800 sqft of land was entitled to be sold whereas the defendant has sold the entire land of 10115 sqft by sale deed dated 31.03.2010, which is void. It was further contended that the Power of Attorney was confined only to sell 7800 sqft whereas the remaining 2315 sqft of land was not authorised to be sold or partitioned. Therefore, the entire sale of land of 10115 sqft is a nullity. Consequently the suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 31.3.2010 and for declaration that the plaintiff is in possession and ownership of land bearing Kh. No.20/34 admeasuring 10115 sqft of land. Further permanent injunction was also sought for.

3. The respondents filed the written statement wherein it was stated that the land bearing Kh.No.20/34 was sold in its entirety on 31.03.2010 and the demarcation was carried out by the plaintiffs itself in 2003, 2008 & 2012 which shows that 0.073 hectares equivalent to 7800 sqft exists at the spot and on rest of land, litigation was pending. It is further stated that the plaintiff had knowledge that no land is available to the extent of 10115 sqft., as described in the map and part of it is under litigation, as such, under the circumstances, the registered power of attorney was executed. Further it was stated that after executing the sale deed dt. 31.03.2010, the defendant was put into possession and she is holding the possession of the land. It was contended that by misrepresentation and suppression of such fact, the suit was filed. It was further pleaded that at the request of the plaintiff itself, the actual available land on the spot i.e., 7800 sqft was agreed to be sold and it was agreed that at the time of registry, the sale deed of the entire land of 10115 sqft would be executed. It was stated that the entire sale consideration was paid to the plaintiff. It is