BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. These first appeals arise out of judgments and decrees passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2010 was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 of First Appeal No. 2254 of 2015 whereas Special Civil Suit No. 90 of 2010 was filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 of First Appeal No. 2255 of 2015. As by the judgments and orders dated 24th September 2015, the suits having a common set of facts were decreed in favour of the respective plaintiffs, the common defendant No. 3 in both these suits, is in appeal before this court, albeit in separate appeals.

2. Two separate parcels of land, owned and possessed by two separate sets of owners, approached the Civil Court to set aside transactions of sale of their respective lands, initially in favour of defendant No. 2, who subsequently sold the lands in favour of defendant No. 3 (Appellant). According to the plaintiffs, such sale transactions ought be declared as non-est and therefore not effective, as according to the plaintiffs, the document ,Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 which was the genesis of such transactions, was itself a document which was forged, and the consequential sale deed also be declared as illegal, forged, fraudulent and non effective.

3. The trial court allowed such suits. Hence, the successive purchaser, defendant No. 3 of both such sale transactions is in appeal. Evidence in both the suits being identical, facts of Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 1990 from which First Appeal No. 2254 of 2015 arises would be referred to.

Facts of First Appeal No. 2254 of 2015

4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 of this appeal were original plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2010 filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. Appellant herein shall be referred to as defendant No. 3, respondents No. 1 to 3 as plaintiffs, respondent No. 4 as defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 5 as defendant No. 2.

4.1 According to the plaintiffs, they are owners of land ad-measuring 8296 square meters of Survey No. 546 at village Khoraj, Taluka and District : Gandhinagar. Their names are even so recorded in the revenue records. It is the case of the plaintiffs that two months before filing of the suit, one Ratilal, a broker dealing in land contacted them to arrange for a buyer for their land, if they were so interested. Ratilal promised to arrange a meeting with a buyer for their as land as well as the land of the plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No. 90 of 2010, Amrutbhai Shambhubhai.

4.2 The plaintiffs expressed their willingness to sell their lands and gave a go ahead for such a meeting. Ratilal, accordingly arranged a first meeting on 12.01.2010 at a hotel on Sarkhej-Gandhinagar highway where they met the defendant No. 1-Pushpendrasinh. Presenting himself as a relative of Shri Shaktisinh Gohil, Pushpendrasinh-the defendant No. 1 showed interest on his behalf to purchase lands after promising to arrange their meeting. Plaintiff No. 3-Natubhai of Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2010 and 90 of 2010 participated in such a meeting on 12.01.2010.

4.3 A meeting was then arranged by defendant No. 1-Pushpendrasinh at the Gandhinagar Circuit House. Pushpendrasinh introduced one Digvijaysinh to the plaintiffs. Digvijaysinh projected himself as a cousin of Shaktisinh and showed interest in purchasing of such lands, dealing on his behalf. After negotiation, according to the plaintiffs, price of land was finalised. Telephonic conversations were exchanged between the parties and a final meeting for such deal was held on 23.01.2010 at the Gandhinagar residence of the plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No. 90 of 2010. According to the plaintiffs, all individuals whose names appeared in the revenue records were instructed to remain present together with their photographs at the Gandhinagar residence at 10 pm on 23.01.2010. Suc