The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of attorney holder has the right to exercise the power given in the power of attorney but cannot use such power for personal benefit or for near relatives.

ORDER :

1. This appeal was admitted on 04.03.2015 for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether, the power of attorney holder Shiv Kumar and Mangal Sahu executed sale deeds in favour of their relatives despite the fact that the power of attorney did not describe the particulars of the immovable property and as such whether the sale was bad?

2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh in Civil Appeal No.09-A/2012, whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned Ist Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha in Civil Suit No.9-A/2004, has been affirmed.

3. The facts of the present case are that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration, partition and separate possession. The declaration was sought to the effect that the sale deeds (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5) executed by power attorney holders; namely, Mangal, Shiv Kumar and Sonu are null and void, on the ground that no authority was given to them to alienate the property and the plaintiff never received the consideration amount. It is further pleaded that in the names of Ghusu Agrawal and Sonu Agrawal, a total of 21.18 acres of land detailed in Schedule A and 8 acres of land described in Schedule B, were recorded and there was no partition. Thus, the plaintiff sought relief of partition and separate possession of his share. It is further pleaded that registered power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Mangal and Shiv/defendants No.1 and 2 on 10.01.1986 vide Ex.D/1 to look after the entire property, but misusing the power of attorney, Mangal and Shiv Kumar sold the suit property to different persons. It is further pleaded that no authority was given to the power of attorney holders to sell the property, therefore, all the sale deeds executed vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5 be declared null and void.

4. Defendants No.1 and 3 to 10 filed their joint written statements and denied the plaint averments. Defendants No.3 and 4 are the power of attorney holders, whereas other defendants are purchasers of the property. Specific plea was taken by the defendants that due power of attorney was executed in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 and by virtue of the power of attorney, the property of the plaintiff was alienated. According to the power of attorney, the right was conferred upon defendants No.3 and 4 to mortgage, sell or gift the entire property of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the purchasers of the property are bona fide purchasers.

5. The learned trial Court framed issues and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get ½ share of the property described in Schedule A and to get 1/3rd share of the property described in Schedule B. It is further held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the partition of the suit land. Further, the power of attorney holders have the right to sell the property and the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly thus, the learned trial Court dismissed the civil suit.

6. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2012 affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

7. Mr. R. S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that in the power of attorney, no authority was given to defendants No. 3 and 4 to sell the property and there was no description of the property to sell, which was sine qua non for the execution of a due power of attorney. He would further argue that the Courts below have committed an error of law in dismissing the suit when the property belongs to the plaintiff, and there was no partition. He would also argue that the Courts below have committed a mistake in not considering the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff. He further argues that the power of attorney holders executed sale deeds in favour of their relatives which are