( 1 ) THE matter was listed from time to time and it was kept for final disposal on admission board at the request of the learned advocates as both the learned advocates are of the opinion that merely admitting the matter may not serve the ends of justice.

( 2 ) ADMIT. Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, the learned advocate for respondents No. 6 and 7 waives service of process of admission. In view of the fact that respondents Nos. 6 and 7 are the really contesting parties service of notice of admission to other respondents is waived.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are ; the appellant-original plaintiff claims that she has purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed on 25-7-2002. As against that the claim of defendant No. 7, gayatrikrupa Sarkari Karmachari Co-operative Housing society Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the society") is that, the society has purchased the same land by a registered sale deed dated 16-7-1999, which is executed in its favour by defendant No. 6, who claims to be the "power of Attorney holder" of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. It is important to note that defendant No. 6 has not produced that power of Attorney before the trial Court. The case of defendant No. 6 is that, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 had executed power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 6 on 1-10-1991; that on the very day a registered Banakhat for the land in question was also executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 4, in favour of the defendant No. 6. It is significant that this document is also not produced before the trial Court. It is claimed that, defendant No. 6, the Power of Attorney holder has executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 7 on 16-7-1999 as referred to hereinabove. Thereafter, defendant No. 6 the Power of Attorney Holder took upon himself the burden of making all possible applications before various authorities on behalf of defendant No. 7. Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate for defendants Nos. 6 and 7 made available relevant documents by way of Paper Book which included two orders made on the applications made by defendant No. 6 on behalf of defendant No. 7. One of these orders is passed by the District Collector, dated 24-7-1999. This order is on an application dated 20-3-1999. It is addressed to defendant No. 6, describing him as Power of attorney holder in the body of the order, an application made on behalf of defendant No. 7 seeking permission to sell is referred to. A schedule is annexed to the order which contains the number of as many as 36 lands. For all these 36 lands permission is sought for, by defendant No. 6, as Power of Attorney holder of all the land owner. The nature of the activity in which defendant No. 6 is involved can be inferred from the aforesaid fact. The application was made on 29-3-1999 seeking permission to sell, and the permission was granted subject to conditions, which are provided under Section 63 of the tenancy Act and Rule 36. Besides certain other conditions are added in this order, of which condition No. 1 is that, the registered sale deed should be got executed within six months from the date of this order, whereas the sale deed was already got executed on 16-7-1999 i. e, prior to grant of permission. Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate for respondents Nos. 6 and 7 explained this condition by saying that, the document, if any. already executed, should be got registered within six months from the date of this order. There cannot be a better example of misreading of the order. The application was seeking permission under Section 63 and Rule 36 of the Tenancy Act. Such permission is a condition precedent for sale of land. Therefore, prima facie, the sale deed dated 16-7-1999 which is prior in point of time to permission dated 24-7-1999 is illegal.

( 4 ) BE that as it may. the question is as to whether the learned Judge is right in passing the order by comparing the two documents only, namely, document dated 25-7-2002 and 16-7-1999 and drawing a conclusion, on the basis of these two documents only, as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document