Important Point—Death of Power of Attorney Holder terminates Power of Attorney.

1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is decided finally at the admission stage.

2. The present Appeal has been filed by the appellants who are the defendant Nos.14 and 15, challenging the impugned order dated 29.4.2014 passed by the Thirteenth Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional CJM, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No.386 of 2008, whereby the trial Court has partly allowed the said application by directing the appellants to maintain status-quo in respect of the title, ownership, position and possession of the disputed property till the final disposal of the suit.

3. The undisputed facts, which have emerged during the course of arguments are that late Shri Maganlal was the common ancestor of the respondent Nos.1 to 15 (who are the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 13 in the suit). The said Maganlal had four sons named Nanalal Maganlal, Ratilal Maganlal, Jayantilal Maganlal and Mohanlal Maganlal. The family members of Nanalal Maganlal, Ratilal Maganlal and Jayantilal Maganlal, who are the respondents herein, had purchased the plot Nos.1 to 94 bearing Revenue Block No.402, situated at village : Kholvad, Ta. Choryasi, Dist. Surat, by executing five separate registered sale deeds in July-August, 1989 as stated in the plaint. The respondent No.1 (plaintiff No.1) had purchased the plot Nos.14 to 26 along with three others and the respondent No.2 (plaintiff No.2) had purchased plot Nos.46 to 73 along with three others as per the sale deeds dated 19.7.1989 and dated 5.8.1989 respectively. On 20.6.2003, a Power of Attorney came to be executed in favour of Mukeshchandra Nanalal (i.e. respondent No.6 - defendant No.4), Nitin Jayantilal (i.e. respondent No.11 - defendant No.9) and Yogesh Chandrakant (i.e. respondent No.15 - defendant No.13) by the said purchasers of the plots in question, for carrying out the acts and deeds as mentioned therein. Now, out of the said purchasers, Shri Nanalal Maganlal expired on 6.8.2004 and Smt. Fulkorben expired on 23.12.2004. Thereafter, on 14.10.2005, one more Power of Attorney came to be executed by the heirs of Nanalal Maganlal and Fulkorben, and by other family members, who are the respondent Nos.3 to 15 (defendant Nos.1 to 13) except the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (the plaintiffs), again in favour of the said respondent Nos.6, 11 and 15 for carrying out the acts and deeds mentioned therein. On 4.3.2006, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (the plaintiffs) revoked the Power of Attorney of Yogesh Chandrakant i.e. respondent No.15 by issuing a public notice. On the same day, the said respondent Nos.6, 11 and 15 executed five separate sale deeds in favour of the appellants (defendant Nos. 14 and 15), in respect of the plot Nos.1 to 94 in question, for their own behalf and as the Power of Attorney Holders of all the respondents. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 (the plaintiffs) therefore, have filed the suit challenging the said sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants and claiming their 1/8th share in said plots. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had also filed an application at Exhibit 5 seeking temporary injunction, which is partly allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order as stated herein above.

4. The learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore for learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been dragged into litigation by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 because of their inter-se family dispute with the other respondents and that the appellants are the bona fide purchasers for value without notice. According to him, the appellants have made full payment of the entire consideration to the respondents as mentioned in the sale deeds, however, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had refused to accept their share of consideration, which the appellants are ready and willing to deposit in the Court. He submitted that the appellants are also ready to keep open the 1/8th portion