R.D. Kothari, J.

1. This is plaintiff's appeal. In this appeal, following main points arise for consideration:--

(a) What makes the deed of power of attorney an irrevocable deed?

(b) Whether the suit filed by legatee, in absence of probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, is maintainable or not?

(c) Scope of section 213 of the Indian Succession Act.

(d) Is the case on hand falls under section 204 of the Indian Contract Act?

(e) Is it possible to accept as general proposition that stranger to contract cannot sue? Secondly, in the facts of the present case, is it possible to say that since the original owner has not challenged the transaction, person who is deriving interest from the original owner, cannot challenge the same.

1.1 The appeal also raises a question, when the Court can compare the signature under section 73 of the Evidence Act?

2. The facts of the case are fairly simple. The relevant facts are thus:--

2.1 One Ramalaxmiben owned one property at village Mandvi, District : Kutch. It is an agricultural land bearing survey No. 154. It is a suit land admeasuring 13 acres-24 gunthas. The said suit property came to be sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 by executing a registered sale deed dated 18.4.2 007. That had led the plaintiff to institute Special Civil Suit No. 86/2007, challenging the legality of said sale deed and dismissal of said suit has given rise to the present appeal.

2.2 The defendant No. 1 had executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on the strength of power of attorney dated 28.8.1997 said to have been executed by said Ramalaxmiben in favour of defendant No. 1. Ramalaxmiben died on 3.1.2004. The agreement to sell of the suit property said to have been executed on 2 9.7.1997. Pending Special Civil Suit No. 86/2007, defendant No. 2 transferred the suit property in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 6. Hence, defendant Nos. 3 to 6 came to be joined as party-defendants. The said second sale deed is dated 29.3.2008. It is the case of the plaintiff that deceased Ramalaxmiben has executed her last Will in favour of the plaintiff on 31.8.2001. The plaintiff came to know in August 2007 that the suit transaction has taken place and hence the plaintiff filed the above referred Special Civil Suit. It is the case of the defendant that the deceased had executed a Will on 25.7.1996 in favour of defendant No. 1 and other brothers including the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed an application for obtaining probate before the Court at Bombay on 22.9.2004. The said application is for obtaining Probate of Will said to have been executed by the deceased on 31.8.2001 in favour of plaintiff. The said application for probate was pending at the time of hearing of this appeal.

2.3 Special Civil Suit No. 86/2007 was mainly contested by defendant No. 2-purchaser. Defendant No. 2 filed Written Statement at Exh.35. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 filed their Written Statement Exh.47 supporting the say of the defendant No. 2. Defendant denies all the assertions made by the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 claim that they are bona fide purchasers of the property.

2.4 The evidence of the plaintiff is recorded at Exh.70. The plaintiff has examined two other witnesses, namely, Narendrabhai Joshi (at Exh.118) and Jitendra Ratilal (at Exh.129). Former is the witness to the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff, whereas the latter is employee of newspaper. The evidence of defendant No. 2 is recorded at Exh.164 and the evidence of defendant No. 5 is recorded at Exh.168. The parties have filed relevant documentary evidence in support of their respective case.

3. Upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties and considering the material on record, the learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss Special Civil Suit No. 86/2007 by judgment and order dated 86/2007. The findings of the learned trial Court broadly stated are as under:--

(a) that, the defendant No. 1 has not led any evidence. Pending the suit, defendant No. 1 died and