JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 06/08/2019 passed by the District Judge, District Mungeli, C.G. in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2017 against a decree whereby the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant was annulled at the behest of the respondents. The defendants are in appeal before this Court.

2. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents, in brief, was that late Adwin Benet, who was the father of plaintiff No. 1 Manoj Benet, plaintiff No. 3 Rajesh Benet and plaintiff No. 4 Smt. Sandhya Chhatterji and husband of plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Sheelwati Benet, owned different land at village Kurankapa, Tehsil Kurankapa and the lands were bearing Khasra Nos.85/1, 85/2 and 61 total admeasuring 2.415 hectares. Adwin Benet died on 09/08/2016, after his death the property devolved on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further pleaded that Adwin Benet was weak in eye sight and his wife used to stay at Dallirajhara and son at Bhilai – Durg. Late Adwin Benet since had attained the ripened age, as such in order to look after his agricultural land he agreed to sale it to Naresh Patel, the defendant No. 3 and as an earnest money, received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In order to record such transaction Naresh Patel called lated Adwin Benet to Tehsil office and by playing fraud executed a power of attorney for entire 7 acres of land. It was further pleaded by plaintiffs that the said power of attorney was not voluntary executed and the same has been executed taking advantage of weak eye sight of Adwin Benet. The plaintiffs further stated that taking advantage of such power of attorney without knowledge of late Adwin Benet a sale deed was executed for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) in favour of defendant No. 1 Smt. Purnima Pandey, w/o Kamalkant Pandey and defendant No. 2 Kamalkant Pandey on 16/03/2015. The knowledge of the said execution of the sale deed never reached to late Adwin Benet and the sale consideration was not passed on to him. The plaintiffs state that therefore defendant No. 1 Smt. Purnima Pandey did not become the sole and exclusive owner of the property as the power of attorney by which the sale deed was executed was non-existing.

3. The plaintiffs further state that when they came to know about such sale deed they made a police report in respect of the same complaining the fact that Naresh Patel was never appointed as power of attorney holder to execute any sale. They further stated that after death of late Adwin Benet they played fraud upon the different revenue authorities and in connivance with them defendant No. 1 Smt. Purnima Pandey got her name mutated in the revenue records. It was further stated that the sale deed dated 16/03/2015 is not a binding on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed along with prayer for permanent injunction for their right and further prayed that their possession should not be disturbed.

4. Per contra, appellants/defendants No. 1 to 3 namely Smt. Purnima Pandey, Kamalkant Pandey and power of attorney holder Naresh Patel stated that late Adwin Benet knowingful well about the intricacies of the documents executed power of attorney in favour of Naresh Patel. It was further stated that the said power of attorney was a registered one and on the basis of the same sale deed was executed. It was further stated that sale deed dated 16/03/2015 also got executed after receipt of the amount/sale consideration, therefore, the sale deed is binding on the plaitniffs. They further stated that during the lifetime of late Adwin Benet no suit or any proceeding was commenced and it was after his death as an after thought the instant civil suit was filed. They further stated that on the basis of the power of attorney two sale deeds were executed one in favour of Smt. Purnima Pandey and another in favour of Kamalkant Pandey and only suit for cancellation was filed in respect of one sale deed which was in favour of Smt. Purnima Pandey. Further